THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 

GIFT  OF 

JOHN  PHILLIPS 
DOROTHY  G.  PHILLIPS 


of  the  Session 

of  the 

California  Legislature 

°f 

1921 


Franklin  Hichborn 


In  some  form  or  other  nearly  every  governmental  problem 
that  involves  the  health,  the  happiness,  or  the  prosperity 
of  the  State  has  arisen,  because  some  private  interest  has 
intervened  or  has  sought  for  its  own  gain  to  exploit  either 
the  resources  or  the  politics  of  the  State. — Hiram  W. 
Johnson  in  his  inaugural  address,  1911. 


San  Francisco 

Press  of  The  James  H.  Barry  Company 
1922 


i  <?  p./ 

H53 


To 

RUDOLPH  SPRECKELS 
SAN  FRANCISCO'S  MOST  USEFUL  CITIZEN 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Page 

I.     Opposing  Forces  in  the  1921  Legislature...    9 

II.     The  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 18 

III.  1921    Legislature   Confronted   With   Tax 

Problem    - 43 

IV.  The  Senate  Passes  the  King  Tax  Bill 57 

V.     King  Bill  Defeated  in  the  Assembly 64 

VI.     Recess  Attacks  Upon  the  King  Bill 81 

VII.     The  Second  King  Tax  Bill  Passes  Senate  91 
VIII.     Second  King  Tax  Bill  Passes  Assembly...l07 
IX.     Attempts  to  Correct  Evils  of  Tax  System 

Fail    - 115 

X.     The  Corporations  Get  Their  Budget 

Hearing    - 122 

XI.     The  Corporations'  Case  Against  the 

Budget    - 131 

XII.     Revising  the  Budget  Upward 152 

XIII.  Defeat   of   the    Indeterminate    Franchise 

Bill  160 

XIV.  The  Johnson  Power  Development  Bill 168 

XV.     The  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 174 

C     XVI.     1921  Legislature  Upholds  the  Initiative 204 

O    XVII.     Partisan  Amendment  to  Direct  Primary 

Defeated  217 

0)  XVIII.     The  Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 229 

Q       XIX.     The  Liquor  Issue  in  the  1921  Legislature...264 
Q        XX.     Attack  Upon  the   Farm   for  Abandoned 

.^  Women  289 

0.       XXI.     Labor  and  the  1921  Session 296 

7      XXII.     Failure  of  Reapportionment 304 

^    XXIII.     Conclusion    .„ 310 

X  Appendix    i 

Cfl 
) 

0 


Copyright  1922 

by 
Franklin  Hichborn 


PREFACE 

Thirteen  years  ago  the  writer  published  a  review 
of  the  work  of  the  1909  Legislature,  showing1  the 
voting  records  of  the  members  of  that  session  on 
test  roll-calls.  Similar  reviews  were  published  for 
the  sessions  of  1911,  1913  and  1915.  They  were 
discontinued  during  the  war  period,  1917  and  1919. 

The  review  of  the  1909  session  was  written  to 
show  the  deadening  influence  of  the  so-called  South- 
ern Pacific  machine — the  political  alliance  between 
the  corporation  and  vice-exploiting  interests — upon 
all  that  is  worth  while  in  the  State. 

In  the  thirteen  years  that  have  intervened,  Cali- 
fornia has  seen  that  machine  broken  and  scattered, 
and  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  State  finding, 
for  a  time  at  least,  expression  at  the  polls  and  in 
legislative  bodies.  The  year  1921  saw  the  influences 
which  had  been  defeated  in  1910,  seeking  under  new 
names  and  new  leadership,  to  overthrow  the  gains 
California  had  realized  from  their  defeat. 

This  review  of  the  1921  session  is  written  to 
show  what  these  defeated  influences  attempted  at 
Sacramento  last  year,  that  the  voter  this  year  may 
at  least  know  how  this  or  that  legislator  stood  at 
the  line-up  between  the  vice-corporation  influences 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  influences  of  good  citizen- 
ship on  the  other. 

There  was  no  partisan  expression  in  the  1909 
Legislature;  there  was  no  partisan  expression  in  the 
Legislature  of  1921.  The  issue  thirteen  years  ago, 


as  well  as  last  year,  was  between  the  two  ever 
opposing  elements,  those  which  for  gain  or  political 
advantage  exploit  the  politics  and  resources  of  the 
State,  and  those  which  seek  the  development  of  the 
State  for  the  well-being  and  advancement  of  all  the 
people. 

Too  long  have  false  standards  of  citizenship  con- 
fused the  public.  The  following  pages  show  men 
who  occupy  high  places  deliberately  slandering  the 
government  of  their  State,  that  under  the  confusion 
thus  created  the  corporations  which  they  serve  might 
escape  what  the  State's  fiscal  agents  had  declared 
to  be  their  just  proportion  of  the  tax  burden.  Such 
corporation  agents  must  be  judged  by  their  public 
conduct,  not  by  what  they  give,  out  of  generous  ex- 
pense accounts  or  unusually  large  salaries,  to  the 
Red  Cross  in  time  of  war,  or  to  charity  in  time  of 
peace.  Men  who  misrepresent  and  slander  the  gov- 
ernment of  their  State  are  not  to  be  counted  as 
good  citizens.  Indeed,  they  are  very  bad  and  very 
dangerous  citizens. 

Corporation  agents,  who,  when  the  fiscal  policy 
of  their  State  was  at  stake  and  depending  upon  a 
narrow  margin  of  votes,  made  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature drunk,  and  introduced  whisky  into  the  cloak 
rooms  of  the  Senate  chamber  to  keep  them  drunk, 
are  not  to  be  classed  as  "good  fellows,"  but  as  of 
the  most  dangerous  class  with  which  a  representa- 
tive form  of  government  has  to  contend. 

Before  the  State  gets  far  in  readjustment  to  new 
conditions,  the  intelligent  citizenry  must  recognize 
that  the  utility  rates  paid  to  the  monopoly-guaranteed 
corporation  are  as  much  a  tax  as  the  moneys  paid 


over  the  counters  of  municipal  or  county  tax  col- 
lector. The  public  is  interested  in  economy  in  local 
and  State  government;  the  public  is  equally  inter- 
ested in  the  economy  of  the  monopoly-enjoying  public 
utility  that  collects  water,  transportation,  telephone, 
or  power  rates  from  him.  The  public  pays  the  ex- 
penses of  such  utilities,  just  as  the  public  pays  the 
expenses  of  government.  And  the  public  suffers 
whenever  there  is  waste  or  extravagance  in  either. 
The  corporation  agents  have  had  much  to  say  of 
late  about  "tax-eaters";  the  public  must  learn  that 
the  "utility  rate-eaters"  are  as  much,  or  more,  of  a 
drain  upon  their  pocketbooks.  "Utility  rate-eaters" 
are  taking  from  the  public  as  high  as  $50,000  a  year ; 
the  salary  of  the  Governor  of  the  State  is  only 
$10,000. 

Those  of  us  who  have  been  following  the  polit- 
ical history  of  the  State  for  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  recognize  now  that  costly  to  California  as 
was  the  exploitation  of  transportation  in  bonuses, 
land  grants  and  extortionate  rates  on  the  basis  of 
all  the  traffic  would  bear,  far  more  costly  was  cor- 
poration corruption  of  courts,  executives  and  legis- 
latures, and  the  undermining  of  our  institutions. 
That  corruption  and  undermining  have  left  scars 
upon  the  State.  The  slimy  trail  of  the  corrupt  leg- 
islator is  across  the  statute  books,  and  of  the  cor- 
rupt judge  across  the  record  of  California  court  de- 
cisions. It  is  for  the  citizen  who  holds  his  State 
higher  than  the  dollar  mark,  to  vote  to  keep  statutes 
and  court  decisions  clean. 

FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN. 
Santa  Clara,  May  7,  1922. 


FRANKLIN  HICHBORN'S 

BOOKS  ON 
CALIFORNIA  POLITICS 


Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909       -        -  $1.25 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911    -        -        -  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913       -        -  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1915    ...  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1921       -        -  2.00 
"The    System"    as    Uncovered    by    the   San    Francisco 

Graft    Prosecution 1.50 

The  above  books  can  be  had  at  the  publisher's  prices, 
with  the  exception  of  the  ''Story  of  1915,"  which  is  about 
out  of  print.  A  limited  number  of  the  1915  books  are, 
however,  available  at  $3.00  each. 


CHAPTER  I. 

OPPOSING  FORCES  IN  THE  1921  LEGISLATURE. 

For  twenty  years  and  more  prior  to  1911,  Califor- 
nia struggled  to  break  the  strangle-hold  of  the  "South- 
ern Pacific  machine"  upon  the  industries  and  politics 
of  the  State. 

The  indictment  against  the  corporation,  vice,  and 
allied  interests  which  made  up  the  machine,  was  that 
they  evaded  their  just  share  of  the  tax  burden,  domi- 
nated legislatures,  controlled  courts  and  executives, 
struck  at  the  foundation  of  American  institutions  by 
corruption  of  elections. 

In  this  years-long  struggle  on  the  side  of  good  citi- 
zenship, democracy  and  State  development,  as  opposed 
to  commercialized  vice,  political  domination  and  exploit- 
ation, were  the  majority  of  the  people  of  California. 
They  were,  however,  unorganized  and  politically  in- 
effective. They  did,  to  be  sure,  from  time  to  time, 
attempt  organization,  only  to  find  their  organizations 
controlled  at  the  test  by  the  very  elements  they  were 
opposing. * 


i  "William  F.  Herrin,  for  years  chief  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Law 
Department,  was  once  asked  how  he  accounted  for  the  machine's 
continuance  in  power  in  the  face  of  the  many  popular  uprisings 
against  it.  "Because  of  its  control  of  reform  movements,"  was 
Herrin's  cynical  reply.  This  "control  of  reform  movements,"  was 
thoroughly  exposed  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution  when 
it  was  shown  that  at  the  1905  San  Francisco  election,  at  which  the 
line  between  the  machine  and  organized  citizens  was  sharply 
drawn,  the  machine  had  named  the  leaders  and  candidates  for  both 
sides,  and  financed  both  sides.  See  "The  System  as  Uncovered  by 
the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution." 


io     Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature 

On  the  side  of  the  "machine,"  in  this  extraordinary 
contest  were  the  corporations;  the  exploiters  of  public 
service  and  all  forms  of  vice ; 2  subsidized  newspapers ; 
corporation-supported  civic  and  "patriotic"  bodies;  pub- 
lic officials  and  hangers-on,  the  petty  beneficiaries 
under  the  system 3 — the  "associated  villainies,"  as 
Arthur  McEwen  4  not  inaptly  dubbed  them. 

2  Revelations  made  at  San  Francisco  during  1906-9,   exposed  a 
trust  company  in  the  investment  of  trust  funds  in  an  assignation- 
house   enterprise    while    the   officer  of   this   trust   company   was   a 
Regent  of  the  University  of  California.    The  same  exposure  showed 
the  principal  banks  of  San  Francisco  petitioning  the  Board  of  Su- 
pervisors   of    that    city    to    permit    nickel-in-the-slot    gamblers    to 
operate    unmolested.     See    report    published   by   order   of    the    San 
Francisco   Board   of   Supervisors,    January    5,    1910,    on    "Causes    of 
Municipal  Corruption  in  San  Francisco." 

3  A  novel  of  twenty  years  ago,  too  little  read  now,  Frank  Norris' 
"Octopus,"    deals    with    the   railroad's   grip    upon    the    State.     The 
"Octopus"  is  well  worth  reading  as  a  novel,  and  more  than  worth 
while  as  portraying  California  under  Railroad  domination. 

4  Arthur  McEwen  was  for  years  the  most  widely  read  news- 
paper writer  of  the  Pacific  Coast.    His  family  immigrated  to  Canada 
from  Scotland  when  McEwen  was  about  a  year  old,  and  from  there 
McEwen  came  to  California.    His  cleverness  as  a  writer  attracted 
attention  and  he  was  induced  to  take  a  course  in  English  literature 
at  the  University  of  California.    Upon  leaving  college,   he  worked 
as  a  laborer  with  pick  and  shovel  on  the  Central  Pacific  Railroad 
in  Alameda  County.    He  prepared  a  lecture,   based  on  his  experi- 
ences,  which  he  called  "Hard  and  Easy  Shoveling."    This  lecture 
he  delivered  up  and  down  the  Pacific  Coast.    In  the  early  70's  he 
went   to   Virginia  City,   where,   as   a  member  of   the   staff  of  the 
Virginia    Chronicle,    he    was    associated    with    Joseph    .Goodman, 
Charles  C.  Goodwin,  Mark  Twain,  Dennis  McCarthy,  Wells  Drury, 
Fred  Hart,   and  other  brilliant  journalists  who  got  their  start  In 
Nevada  during  the  bonanza  days.    Leaving  the  Comstock  for  San 
Francisco,  McEwen  was  for  a  time  employed  in  editorial  work  but 
left  San  Francisco  to  join  forces  with  Edwin  Conlon  in  publishing 
the  Stockton  Mail.    He  soon  succeeded  in  making  that  paper  the 
most    talked    of    publication    in    California.     While    on    the    Mail, 
McEwen  wrote  clever  articles  for  the  Sacramento  Bee  and  Oakland 
Tribune,    exposing   and   denouncing   graft    in    public   life.     He   left 
Stockton  to  take  editorial  charge  of  the  San  Francisco  Post  about 
the  same  time  William  Randolph  Hearst  became  owner  of  the  San 
Francisco  Examiner.   McEwen  joined  the  Examiner  staff.    His  most 
unique  venture  was  the  publication  of  "Arthur  McEwen's  Letter." 
Associated  with'  McEwen  in  this  venture  was  the  late  Franklin  K. 
Lane.    "The  Letter"  was  published  weekly.    It  was  devoted  to  the 
exposure  of  graft  in  high  places.    McEwen  was  eventually  forced  to 
abandon  this  venture  because  of  failing  health.    Later  he  went  to 
New  York  as   chief   editor  of  the   New   York   American   and   was 
chief  editorial  writer  of  that  publication  at  the  time  of  his  death, 


Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature      n 

As  attack  after  attack  on  the  machine  failed,  the 
opposing  citizenry  was  made  to  recognize  that  before 
government  by  the  people  could  be  restored  in  Cali- 
fornia, primary  and  election  laws  had  to  be  enacted 
to  ensure  expression  of  the  people's  will  at  the  polls; 
that  the  people  must  be  given  checks  on  the  Legis- 
lature by  which  legislative  enactments  could  be  rejected, 
and  laws  enacted  independent  of  the  Legislature;  that 
exploitation  of  the  State's  resources  must  be  checked 
by  regulatory  laws.  Incidental  to  this,  came  determina- 
tion that  large  tax-evaders  should  be  compelled  to  bear 
their  just  proportion  of  the  tax  burden.6 

The  public  turned  to  the  Legislature  for  relief.  But 
the  machine  controlled  the  Legislature  as  it  did  execu- 
tives and  courts,  and  had  organized  to  defeat  any  legis- 
lation that  might  interfere  with  the  activities  of  any 
of  the  interests  that  made  up  the  machine.  Thus,  the 
racetrack  gamblers  controlled  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Public  Morals  where  legislation  adverse  to  vice- 
exploitation  could  be,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was 
blocked.7  The  same  intelligent  care  was  taken  in  the 
selection  of  the  committees  that  dealt  with  corpora- 
tions, election  laws,  etc.  When  this  became  clearly 
understood,  California,  for  the  time  at  least,  gave 


which  occurred  at  Hamilton,  Bermuda,  May  1,  1907.  McEwen  did 
more  than  any  other  one  man  to  secure  for  California  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  system  of  voting.  He  was  among  the  first  to  de- 
nounce publicly  the  methods  of  the  so-called  Southern  Pacific 
machine. 

6  For  an  account  of  how  this  demand  for  equalization  of  the 
tax  burden   found   expression   in   the  Plehn  tax  plan  see  Story  of 
the  California  Legislature  of  1913. 

7  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909  and  of  1911. 


12      Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature 

attention  to  the  character  and  the  records  of  the  men 
selected  for  the  Legislature. 

The  evils  of  corporation-vice  control  of  government 
culminated  in  the  scandals  of  the  1906  Republican 
State  convention  held  at  Santa  Cruz,  the  so-called 
"Santa  Cruz  convention."  There,  nominations  were 
openly  given  for  support  of  machine  policies.  The 
Chairman  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee; 
a  member  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  who  was  later 
to  resign  his  justiceship  under  fire  of  serious  charges 
of  bribetaking;  the  Republican  nominee  for  governor; 
the  corporation-attorney  chairman  of  the  convention, 
met  at  banquet  with  a  notorious  political  boss,  who  was 
even  then  known  as  a  corruptionist,  and  was  soon  to 
be  indicted,  tried  and  imprisoned  for  bribing  a  board 
of  supervisors.  The  widely  published  picture  of  that 
banquet  scene  went  far  toward  awakening  California  as 
to  what  the  "machine"  meant  to  the  State,  and  what 
it  represented. 

On  the  heels  of  this  convention,  came  the  revelations 
of  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution. 

The  Graft  Prosecution  ripped  the  cover  off  the 
corruption  of  "machine"  control,  and  spurred  a  jaded 
public  to  renewed  efforts  for  relief. 

These  efforts  met  with  partial  success  at  the  election 
of  1908  when  a  Legislature  was  elected,  which,  at  the 
1909  session,  undertook  to  give  the  State  a  practical 
direct  primary  law,  to  take  the  judiciary  out  of 
politics,  to  restore  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original 
simplicity  and  effectiveness,  to  reserve  to  the  people 
the  power  to  initiate  laws,  to  bring  the  railroads 


Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature      13 

under  effective  regulatory  control.  All  but  one  of 
these  reforms  were  defeated,  although  in  each  instance 
by  narrow  margin.  The  exception  was  the  Direct 
Primary  law,  and  even  here  the  machine  leaders  were 
able  to  attach  provisions  which  increased  the  difficulties 
of  its  operation  almost  to  the  point  of  impracticability. 

Their  near  successes  at  the  legislative  session  of  1909 
encouraged  the  supporters  of  good  government  to  con- 
tinue their  campaign.  At  the  general  election  in  1910 
their  efforts  were  completely  successful.  Not  only 
did  they  elect  the  Governor,  but  found  themselves  in 
safe  control  of  both  houses  of  the  Legislature.  At 
the  1911  session,  the  reforms  which  the  people  of 
California  had  so  long  been  demanding  and  which  had 
been  denied  by  narrow  margin  at  the  session  of  1909, 
were  realized.  The  corporation  lobbyists  and  other 
petty  beneficiaries  of  the  system,  who  had  for  years 
served  their  masters  well,  disappeared  from  Sacra- 
mento. A  new  political  order  opened  for  California. 

Under  this  new  order,  the  little  fellows  of  the 
"machine,"  who  had,  out  in  the  open,  fetched  and 
carried  for  the  larger  beneficiaries  of  the  System,  dis- 
appeared. They  did  not  return.  But  the  larger  bene- 
ficiaries, the  "associated  villainies,"  were  not  driven 
out;  they  were  not  broken.  Under  new  names,  with 
new  fetchers  and  carriers,  employing  new  and  more 
plausible  methods,  they  opened  their  campaign  to 
recover  their  power  and  prestige,  and  their  hold  on 
special  privileges,  which  the  political  upheaval  of  1910 
had  cost  them. 

Craftily,  they  attacked  the  gains   for  good  citizen- 


14     Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature 

ship  which  had  followed  their  defeat.  The  Initiative 
and  Referendum,  the  Direct  Primary,  non-Partisanship 
in  local  affairs,  were  particularly  singled  out,  for  until 
these  were  broken  down  those  who  had  profited  under 
vice-corporation  rule  could  not  hope  to  regain  their 
grip.  Such  measures  as  the  Redlight  Abatement  Act, 
the  Eight-Hour  law  for  women,  the  Minimum  Wage 
law  for  women,  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act, 
were  denounced  as  "freak  legislation."  The  State 
administration  was  attacked  as  extravagant  and  waste- 
ful. Organizations  were  financed  by  executives  of 
public  utility  corporations  for  the  alleged  purpose  of 
compelling  economy  in  State  affairs. 

As  has  been  intimated,  the  discredited  political  hacks 
who  fetched  and  carried  for  the  large  beneficiaries  were 
not  employed  for  this  work.  The  corporations  were 
out  for  new  men,  preferably  men  who  had  been  promi- 
nent in  the  reform  organization.  He  was  indeed  an 
uninfluential  "progressive"  who  could  not  get  a  gener- 
ously salaried  place  with  a  corporation.  Some,  of 
course,  refused  such  offers;  others,  more  thrifty,  ac- 
cepted them,  and  have  found  reform  politics  not 
unprofitable. 

As  the  departments  of  State  government  were  made 
competent  under  the  new  order,  the  corporations  hired 
effective  men  away  from  them.  An  executive  of  a 
State  department  receiving  $5000  a  yean  for  his  services, 
with  no  prospect  of  advancement  or  increase  in  com- 
pensation, found  his  loyalty  to  his  State  put  to  the 
test,  when  one  of  the  corporations  he  was  engaged  in 
regulating  or  supervising  offered  him  double  what 


Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature      15 

he  was  receiving  from  the  State.  The  custom  of 
hiring  State  experts  away  from  their  jobs  became 
a  recognized  custom  of  corporations.  Some  executives 
could  not  be  influenced  in  this  way,  and  actually 
refused  salaries  double  that  which  the  State  was  paying 
them.  But  more  gave  way  at  the  test. 

The  effect  of  all  this  was  to  break  down  the  con- 
fidence of  the  general  public  in  their  own  movement. 
Citizens  who  approved  every  specific  act  of  the 
machine-free  Legislature,  gained  the  impression  that 
the  progressives  were  responsible  for  more  or  less 
"freak"  legislation.  Taxpayers  who  had  demanded 
modern  concrete  highways,  who  had  applauded  im- 
provements in  the  handling  of  the  dependent,  defective 
and  delinquent  classes,  endorsed  extension  of  the  work 
of  the  State  University,  and  of  the  agricultural,  health, 
and  sanitary  departments,  and  were  willing  to  pay 
for  them,  found  themselves  criticizing  as  wantonly 
extravagant  the  very  improvements  which  had  their 
hearty  approval  and  support. 

The  gains  of  this  propaganda  were  registered  in 
each  successive  session  of  the  Legislature.  The  pro- 
gressive element  in  overwhelming  majority  in  1911-13, 
found  themselves  in  1915-17  losing  ground. 

By  1919,  the  "Associated  Villainies"  under  new 
names  felt  themselves  sufficiently  re-established  to 
strike.  They  launched  an  attack  against  the  Initiative, 
against  the  Eight  Hour  law  for  women,  and  other 
progressive  policies.  They  attempted  the  passage  of 
their  so-called  Indeterminate  Franchise  law,  which 
would  have  made  public  utility  franchises  practically 


16      Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature 

perpetual.  They  proposed  reorganization  of  the  State 
government  in  the  name  of  "economy  and  reform." 

All  these  attempts  at  the  1919  session  were  blocked 
by  a  handful  of  progressives  in  Senate  and  Assembly. 
Senators  William  J.  Carr  of  Pasadena,  Herbert  C. 
Jones  and  Frank  Benson  of  San  Jose,  William  Kehoe 
of  Humboldt,  L.  L.  Dennett  of  Modesto,  M.  B.  Harris 
of  Fresno,  exposed  reactionary  moves  in  the  Upper 
House,  while  J.  M.  Argabrite  of  Ventura,  Esto  B. 
Broughton  of  Modesto,  Charles  W.  Cleary  of  Tulare, 
Grace  S.  Dorris  of  Bakersfield,  Champ  S.  Price  of 
Santa  Cruz,  Anna  L.  Say  lor  of  Berkeley,  H.  W.  Wright 
of  Pasadena,  William  J.  Locke  of  Alameda,  Thomas 
L.  Ambrose  of  Los  Angeles,  T.  M.  Wright  of  San 
Jose,  and  Walter  Eden  of  Orange,  did  similar  work 
in  the  Assembly. 

At  the  1920  election,  such  members  as  had  been  in- 
strumental in  defeating  reactionary  plans  at  the  1919 
session,  had  the  effective  opposition  of  organizations 
ostensibly  working  in  the  interest  of  State  economy 
and  reform,  but  now  known  to  have  been  organized 
and  financed  by  corporations  and  allied  interests.  Some 
of  the  members  thus  attacked  were  actually  denied 
re-election,  notably  Argabrite,  Dorris,  and  Price.  Sena- 
tors Benson  and  Kehoe  were  not  candidates  for 
re-election.  Both,  it  was  known,  would  have  had  the 
opposition  of  the  corporation-financed  "economy-and- 
reform"  organizations  if  they  had  been.  Such  organ- 
izations unquestionably  played  an  important  part  in 
the  election  of  certain  members  of  the  1921  session. 
The  element  in  industry  and  politics  which  such  organ- 


Opposing  Forces  in  1921  Legislature      17 

izations  represent  went  to  Sacramento  more  confident 
of  making  gains  for  its  policies  than  it  had  been  since 
its  overthrow  ten  years  before.  But  at  the  test,  it 
found  that  on  the  principal  issue  before  the  Legislature, 
equalization  of  taxation,  it  could  not  command  more 
than  a  one-third  vote  of  either  house,  while  all  attempts 
to  limit  the  Initiative,  to  amend  the  Direct  Primary, 
to  pass  an  Indeterminate  (Perpetual)  Franchise  law, 
failed.  So  far  as  legislation,  good  or  bad,  was  con- 
cerned, the  contest  between  the  two  groups  ended  in 
a  stale-mate.  But  the  contest  marked  the  division 
sharply  between  the  two  groups,  a  division  which  has 
been  carried  to  the  voters,  and  will  mark  the  real 
issue  of  the  1922  State  campaign.  In  this,  the  1921 
Legislature  was  similar  to  that  of  1909. 

The  issues  of  the  1909  Legislature  were  carried  to 
the  voters  at  the  1910  election,  and  the  voters  decided 
against  "machine"  rule. 

At  the  election  in  November,  1922,  the  issues  of 
the  1909  Legislature,  which,  under  other  names  and 
changed  setting,  were  the  issues  of  the  session  of 
1921,  will  once  again  be  submitted  to  decision  of  the 
voters.  The  issue  in  1910  was  the  ending  of  govern- 
ment by  corporation,  vice  and  allied  interests;  the 
outcome  of  the  1922  issue  will  determine  whether  or 
not  the  corporation-vice  interests  can  regain  their  hold 
on  the  government  of  the  State  of  California. 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  UNSETTLED  STATE  TAX  PROBLEM. 

Before  the  1921  Legislature  convened,  the  State's 
tax-experts,  after  painstaking  investigation,  found  that 
the  tax  rates  paid  by  the  public  service  corporations 
and  banks  were  approximately  35  per  cent  lower  than 
the  average  rate  paid  by  the  plain  citizen,  and  so 
reported  to  the  Governor  and  the  Legislature. 

The  Legislature,  backed  by  the  State  administration, 
endeavored  to  equalize  these  rates;  that  is  to  say,  to 
require  the  corporations  and  banks  to  pay  the  same 
proportionate  taxes  on  the  value  of  their  property  as 
plain  citizens  pay.  To  that  end,  the  so-called  King 
bill  was  introduced.  The  measure  took  its  name  from 
its  author,  Senator  Lyman  King  of  Redlands,  chairman 
of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation. 

During  the  first  part  of  the  session,  that  is  to  say, 
before  the  constitutional  recess,  thirty  Senators  and 
forty-nine  Assemblymen — seventy-nine  members  of  the 
Legislature  in  all — voted  for  the  King  bill. 

Ten  Senators  and  thirty  Assemblymen — a  total  of 
forty  for  both  houses — voted  against  the  King  bill. 

With    seventy-nine    legislators    voting    to    pass  the 

measure,  and  forty  legislators  voting  to  defeat  it,  the 

King  bill   was,   at   the   first   part   of   the   session,  de- 
feated. 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  19 

Such  was  one  of  the  State's  experiences  with  its 
revenue  and  taxation  system. 

When  the  Legislature  reconvened  after  the  consti- 
tutional recess,  Mr.  King  pressed  to  passage  a  second 
revenue-and-taxation  bill,  which  provided  for  virtually 
the  same  tax  rates  for  utility  corporations  and  banks  as 
had  been  provided  in  the  measure  defeated  during  the 
first  part  of  the  session,  that  is  to  say,  the  corporations' 
rates  were  increased  to  an  equality  with  the  rates  paid 
by  the  general  tax  payer. 

This  second  King  bill  received  twenty-seven  votes 
in  the  Senate  and  fifty-four  in  the  Assembly,  a  total 
of  eighty-one. 

In  the  Senate,  thirteen  members  voted  against  it; 
in  the  Assembly,  twenty-six — a  total  of  thirty-nine. 

By  this  vote  of  eighty-one  to  thirty-nine,  this  second 
King  tax  bill  became  law,  and  the  taxes  of  the  banks 
and  corporations  were  increased  to  the  rates  which  the 
State's  tax  experts  had  declared  to  be  necessary  to 
place  banks  and  corporations  on  the  same  level  as  to 
tax  rates  as  the  general  taxpayer.  But  a  single  mem- 
ber of  either  house  who  had  voted  yes,  by  voting  no, 
would  have  defeated  the  measure. 

Had  there  been  such  a  change  of  a  single  vote, 
resulting  in  the  measure's  defeat,  a  deficit  in  the  State 
treasury  would  have  resulted. 

To  meet  this  deficit,  an  ad  valorem  tax  of  approxi- 
mately 22  cents  on  each  $100  of  the  property  owned 
by  plain  citizens  would  have  had  to  be  levied.  Thus, 
in  addition  to  paying  rates  35  per  cent  higher  than  the 
rates  (ad  valorem  basis)  paid  by  the  corporations,  the 


2O  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

plain  citizen  would  have  been  called  upon  to  pay  an 
additional  tax  of  22  cents  on  every  $100  assessed  value 
of  the  property  he  owns,  if  the  King  tax-equalization 
bill  had  been  defeated. 

And  for  the  further  consideration  of  the  people 
of  California,  who,  by  the  passage  of  the  King  bill, 
escaped  this  increased  tax  burden,  it  may  be  added 
that  had  a  single  member  of  the  Senate  who  voted 
for  the  bill  voted  against  it,  and  even  had  he  failed  to 
vote,  the  bill  would  have  been  defeated  even  though 
every  one  of  the  eighty  members  of  the  Assembly 
had  voted  for  it.  In  other  words,  the  eighty  members 
of  the  Assembly  might  have  voted  to  increase  the 
corporation  and  bank  taxes,  and  twenty-six  of  the  forty 
members  of  the  Senate,  making  106  in  all.  But  if 
fourteen  Senators  had  voted  no,  or  had  they  even 
failed  to  vote,  no  increase  in  the  bank  and  corporation 
taxes  could  have  been  made.  The  tax  burden  which 
these  institutions  according  to  the  State's  experts  should 
carry  would  have  been  shifted  to  the  plain  citizen. 
Indeed,  the  vote  in  the  Legislature  of  120  members, 
might  have  been  106  votes  for  the  proposed  equalization 
of  taxes  and  not  a  vote  against  it,  and  yet  equalization 
would  have  been  defeated. 

Had  the  corporations  and  banks  h>een  able  to  control 
or  influence  or  convince  fourteen  Senators,  or  twenty- 
seven  Assemblymen  to  vote  against  the  King  tax  bill, 
or  even  to  refrain  from  voting,  the  increase  in  the 
corporations'  rates  recommended  by  the  State's  fiscal 
agents  as  necessary  for  the  equalization  of  taxes  would 
not  have  been  made. 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  21 

Such  is  the  revenue  and  taxation  system  in  force 
in  California.  From  the  day  of  its  adoption  eleven 
years  ago,  those  in  touch  with  State  matters  have 
known  that  the  system  is  unscientific,  inadequate,  un- 
just, both  to  the  smaller  and  weaker  corporations  and 
to  the  general  public.  The  contest  over  the  King  tax 
bill  brought  these  facts  squarely  before  the  California 
tax  payer.  For  a  time,  the  whole  State  was  awake 
to  the  inequalities  and  the  absurdities  of  the  system. 
Then  interest  lagged,  and  the  incident  of  the  King 
tax  bill  all  but  passed  from  public  consideration.  With 
few  exceptions  the  banks  and  corporations  interested 
do  not  want  such  revelations  as  those  of  the  King  tax- 
bill  controversy  remembered.  It  is  the  part  of  good 
citizenship  to  prevent  them  being  forgotten. 

California's  revenue  and  taxation  system  is  known 
as  the  Plehn  plan.  It  bears  the  name  of  its  author, 
Professor  Carl  C.  Plehn  of  the  University  of  Califor- 
nia. Professor  Plehn  is  "Professor  of  Finance"  at  the 
University.  As  such,  he  trains  young  Calif ornians  in 
finance,  taxation  and  corporation  organization. 

Professor  Plehn  was  a  Professor  of  Finance  at  the 
University  in  1905,  when  the  State  employed  him  to 
apply  his  knowledge,  and  work  out  for  California  an 
equitable  system  of  taxation.  Six  years  later,  Novem- 
ber, 1910,  the  State  by  faith  and  popular  vote  adopted 
the  Plehn  plan.  It  went  into  effect  in  1911,  and 
has  been  in  operation  ever  since. 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Plehn  plan,  all  taxes 
on  corporations  and  individuals  alike — State,  county, 


22  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

municipal  and  district — were  collected  on  the  ad  valorem 
basis,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  value  of  property. 

This  system  worked  well  enough  in  counties,  munici- 
palities, and  districts,  for  each  of  these  communities 
had  its  local  assessor  who  determined  the  value  of 
property  for  taxation  purposes.  But  when  it  came  to 
State  taxes,  the  system  did  not  work  well  at  all. 

The  State  tax  rate  was  the  same  in  all  counties, 
but  there  was  no  State  valuation  of  property  for  taxa- 
tion purposes.  The  State  taxes  were  calculated  on  the 
assessments  made  by  county  assessors.  No  two  of  the 
fifty-eight  counties  in  the  State  are  assessed  on  the 
same  basis  of  values.  Testimony  taken  before  legis- 
lative committees  shows  that  some  counties'  assessments 
run  as  low  as  20  per  cent  of  the  true  value  of  the 
property,  in  other  counties  the  assessment  is  as  high 
as  60  per  cent  or  more. 

It  will  be  seen  that  where  the  State  tax  rate  was 
the  same  on  the  assessed  value,  the  people  of  the 
counties  assessed  at  60  per  cent  of  the  true  value  of 
their  property  were  paying  three  times  as  much  on 
the  basis  of  actual  values  as  the  people  of  those 
counties  where  the  assessment  was  only  20  per  cent  of 
true  values.  In  the  confusion  of  such  a  situation,  large 
interests  found  it  easy  to  evade  their  just  proportion  of 
the  tax  burden. 

There  were,  of  course,  other  serious  defects  in  the 
system,8  but  the  inequalities  of  the  State  tax  paid  by 

8  Extended  discussion  of  the  old  system  of  taxation,  with  a 
complete  account  of  how  the  Plehn  plan  came  to  be  adopted,  with 
details  of  the  problems  which  arise  under  it,  will  be  found  in  "The 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913" — The  James  H.  Barry 
Co.,  1122-24  Mission  street,  San  Francisco,  publisher. 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  23 

counties,  the  ease  with  which  large  concerns  dodged 
their  tax  bills,  were  the  basis  of  the  popular  demand 
for  an  overhauling  of  the  system. 

In  response  to  this  demand,  the  1905  Legislature 
authorized  the  appointment  of  a  State  commission  and 
the  employment  of  an  "expert  in  taxation  and  public 
finance"  to  investigate  the  State's  taxation  system  and 
recommend  a  plan  for  its  reform. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  only  man  within  reach 
who  responded  to  the  description  "expert  in  taxation 
and  public  finance"  was  Professor  Carl  C.  Plehn  of 
the  University  of  California.  However  this  may  be, 
Professor  Plehn  was  employed,  and  given  exceptional 
opportunity  to  apply  his  knowledge  of  taxation. 

Two  years  later,  the  commission  reported  to  the 
1907  Legislature,  recommending  that  the  revenues  of 
State  and  of  counties  be  separated  so  that  the  State 
would  get  its  revenue  from  public  service  and  other 
corporations,9  and  the  counties  their  revenues  from  an 
ad  valorem  tax  on  the  property  of  the  plain  citizens. 
It  was  not  until  1910,  however,  that  the  Plehn  plan 
was  finally  adopted.10 


9  The  commission  further  recommended  that  the  State  continue 
to  derive  revenues  from:     (1)    Poll   Tax,    (2)   Inheritance  Tax,    (3) 
Tax  on  Insurance  Premiums/  (4)   Annual  Franchise  Tax  on  Cor- 
porations, (5)  All  Fees  at  the  Time  Collected,   (6)  All  Earnings  of 
State  Property  and  Investments,    (7)   All  Collections  by  State  In- 
stitutions,  (8)   The  Revenue  from.  Sale  of  State  Land.    The  com- 
mission also  recommended  that  the  State  retain  its  right  to  levy 
on  general  property,  but  that  such  levy  should  be  resorted  to  only 
to  make  good)  a  deficit. 

10  The  Plehn  plan  was  voted  upon   at  the  general  election  of 
1908,  but  rejected  by  a  vote  of  87,977  in  its  favor  to  114,104  against. 
From  1908   until  1910,   when  it  was  finally  adopted  by  a  vote   of 
141,312  to  96,493,  an  extraordinary  publicity  campaign  was  carried 
on  to  influence  the  public  in  its  favor. 


24  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

On  its  face,  or  at  any  rate  as  the  people  were  in- 
formed regarding  it,  the  Plehn  plan  provided  that: 

(1)  The    plain    citizen    should    be    relieved    of    all 
State  taxes,  but  should  pay  all  the  local  taxes,  county, 
municipal  and  district. 

(2)  Certain    public    utility    corporations   should    be 
relieved  of  all  local  taxes  on  their  operative  property, 
but  should  pay  a  percentage  tax  on  their  gross  earnings 
for  State  purposes. 

Or,  as  it  was  popularly  expressed,  the  corporations 
were  to  pay  the  State  taxes,  and  the  public  the  local 
taxes.  Incidentally,  the  corporations  which  had — it 
was  notorious — never  borne  their  fair  share  of  the 
tax  burden,  were  to  be  made,  under  the  new  system, 
to  pay  their  full  share. 

To  be  sure,  careful  reading  of  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  under  which  the  Plehn  plan  was  adopted 
revealed  certain  details  which  were  to  give  trouble 
later  on.  But,  at  the  time  the  system  was  adopted, 
these  details  were  not  emphasized  by  its  advocates.11 

"The  purpose  of  the  Amendment"  (providing  for 
the  Plehn  system),  reads  a  report  issued  in  1910  and 
signed  by  Professor  Carl  C.  Plehn ;  the  then  Governor 
of  the  State,  James  N.  Gillett,  and  others,  "is  to 
abolish  the  State  tax  on  property  in  general  and  to 
supply  the  State's  need  from  other  sources;  namely, 
the  gross  earning  taxes  on  public  service  corporations 

11  The  public  was  not  long  in  discovering  these  details.  Said 
the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  February  27,  1911,  less 
than  four  months  after  the  Plehn  plan  had  been  adopted:  "That 
the  tax  amendment  (Plehn  plan)  was  not  understood  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  its  adoption  has  been  followed  by  important  and  un- 
pleasant results  which  nobody  discovered  during  the  discussion, 
and  which,  if  suspected,  would  have  defeated  the  amendment." 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  25 

and  on  insurance  companies  and  the  per  centage  tax 
on  the  stock  of  banks.  The  question,  therefore,  arises 
as  to  whether  the  new  sources  proposed  will  be  ade- 
quate. 

The  authors  of  the  report  then  proceed  to  demon- 
strate that  the  revenues  to  be  derived  from  the  cor- 
porations would  be  sufficient  for  State  needs. 

To  convince  the  plain  citizens  that  they  would  be 
relieved  of  all  State  taxes,  if  they  shouldered  the 
burden  of  all  county,  municipal  and  district  taxes,  a 
most  extraordinary  publicity  campaign  was  carried  on. 

A  circular  letter  under  date  of  October  15,  1910, 
sent  broadcast  over  the  State  by  the  Associated  Realty 
Boards  of  California,  urging  ratification  of  the  Amend- 
ment, said:  "Constitutional  Amendment  No.  1  (pro- 
viding for  the  Plehn  system)  automatically  accom- 
plishes perfect  equalization  as  between  the  several 
counties  of  this  State,  and  entirely  relieves  the  localities 
from  all  State  taxes." 

In  another  circular  sent  out  by  the  same  association, 
the  first  two  of  the  "six  leading  aims"  of  the  Amend- 
ments are  declared  to  be: 

"(1)  To  entirely  remove  the  State  tax  which  is 
now  imposed  on  property  in  general,  and  thereby 
relieve  real  estate  from  its  burden  of  paying  over 
90  per  cent  of  the  taxes  of  California. 

"(2)  To  separate  the  sources  of  State  revenue 
from  those  used  by  the  counties  and  cities,  auto- 
matically curing  the  present  inequalities  between  coun- 
ties, and  removing  them  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  Board  of  Equalization." 


26  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

Mr.  John  Tuohy,  then  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Revenue  and  Taxation  of  the  State  Grange,  in  an 
open  letter  which  was  given  wide  circulation  in  the 
rural  districts  of  the  State,  said: 

"As  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation  of  the  State  Grange  of  California,  and  under 
resolutions  passed  at  its  last  annual  convention  at 
Napa,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  members  of 
the  Order  and  of  land  owners  generally,  to  the 
importance  and  necessity  of  voting  for  Senate  Consti- 
tutional Amendment  No.  1  which  provides  a  more 
equitable  and  just  system  of  revenue  and  taxation, 
by  which  the  State  will  get  its  revenue  from  one 
source,  and  the  counties,  cities  and  districts  from 
another,  than  the  present  system  makes  possible." 

The  measure  was  described  on  the  ballot  as,  "pro- 
viding for  the  separation  of  State  and  local  taxation, 
and  providing  for  the  taxation  of  public  service  and 
other  corporations  for  the  benefit  of  the  State." 

The  term  "more  equitable  and  just  system  of 
taxation"  meant  to  the  tax-burdened  plain  citizen  that 
the  corporations,  insurance  companies  and  banks  were 
to  pay  their  fair  share  of  taxes,  and  the  corporations, 
which  were  to  have  their  taxes  increased  under  the 
Plehn  plan,  were  most  active  in  spreading  that  idea. 

In  vain  did  a  handful  of  men  who  had  made 
something  of  a  study  of  taxation — not  so  exhaustive 
and  intelligent  a  study  as  Professor  Plehn,  but  some- 
thing of  a  study — point  out  the  incongruity  of  the 
corporations  spending  their  good  money  in  a  publicity 
campaign  to  have  their  taxes  "increased." 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  27 

"Today,"  said  Matt  I.  Sullivan,  later  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  a  statement  published  during 
the  1910  campaign,  "many  of  our  best  citizens,  usually 
on  the  alert  to  prevent  legislation  hostile  to  the  interests 
of  the  people,  favor  the  Amendment  (the  Plehn  plan) 
on  the  supposed  ground  that  it  will  simplify  the  system 
of  taxation,  increase  the  taxes  of  public  service  corpo- 
rations, and  lighten  the  burden  of  the  other  taxpayers. 
The  corporations,  whose  taxes  are  supposed  to  be 
increased  by  the  Amendment,  excepting  the  banks,  are 
working  for  its  adoption.  They  have  created  a  fund, 
which  is  now  being  used  to  convince  the  people  that 
the  taxes  of  the  masses  will  be  reduced  if  the  Amend- 
ment goes  into  effect,  and  that  the  taxes  of  the  cor- 
porations will  be  correspondingly  increased." 

"A  final  objection,"  said  State  Senator  A.  E.  Boyn- 
ton,  in  giving  his  reasons  why  the  Amendment  should 
be  defeated,  "which  can  be  made  to  the  Amendment 
as  a  whole,  is  that  both  the  largest  railroad  corpora- 
tion and  the  largest  street  railway  system  in  the  State 
are  in  favor  of  the  measure  and  are  industriously 
working  for  its  passage.  In  the  case  of  the  railroad 
company,  their  taxes  would  not  be  increased,  and  the 
taxes  of  the  street-car  system  would  be  reduced  20  per 
cent.  No  one  would  accuse  these  two  corporations 
of  not  looking  out  for  their  own  welfare,  and  the  fact 
that  they  are  so  heartily  in  favor  of  the  measure 
should  warn  the  people  to  study  it  well  before  they 
place  the  seal  of  their  votes  upon  it." 

But  these  warnings  were  faint  in  comparison  with 
the  roar  of  publicity  in  favor  of  the  measure  which 


28  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

the  corporations  that  were  to  have  their  taxes  "in- 
creased" kept  up,  generously  assisted  by  deluded  organ- 
izations of  agriculturists  and  other  producers,  who 
were  to  have  their  taxes  "decreased";  and  by  their 
agents,  Chambers  of  Commerce,  Realty  Boards,  corpo- 
ration-supported civic  bodies  and  newspapers. 

California  accordingly  adopted  the  corporation- 
backed  Plehn  plan  of  taxation. 

After  ten  years,  the  1921  Legislature  found  the 
corporations  and  banks,  on  the  figures  furnished  by 
the  State's  fiscal  agents,  still  escaping  their  just  share 
of  the  tax  burden,  while  Professor  Carl  C.  Plehn 
appeared  at  Sacramento,  as  the  paid  agent  of  the 
corporations,  although  still  retaining  his  place  as  Pro- 
fessor of  Finance  at  the  University  of  California,  to 
urge  upon  the  Legislature  that  the  corporations'  rates 
be  not  increased,  and  to  suggest,  as  one  way  out  of 
the  State's  financial  difficulties,  that  an  ad  valorem  tax 
for  State  purposes  could  be  levied  upon  the  plain 
citizen. 

This  was  the  same  Professor  Plehn,  tax  expert,  who, 
when  the  Plehn  plan  was  before  the  State  for  adop- 
tion, joined  the  then  Governor  of  California  in  signing 
a  statement  that  the  purpose  of  the  Plehn  taxation 
system  is  "to  abolish  the  State  tax  on  property  in 
general,  and  to  supply  the  State's  needs  from  other 
sources,  namely,  the  gross-earnings  taxes  on  public 
service  corporations  and  on  insurance  companies  and 
the  per  centage  tax  on  the  stock  of  banks." 

Hiram  Johnson  became  Governor  in  January,  1911. 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  29 

The   first   problem   that   confronted   his   administration 
was  presented  by  the  new  Plehn  taxation  system. 

The  weaknesses  of  the  system  at  once  came  to  the 
surface.  The  1911  Legislature  discovered  that  the 
State  taxes  raised  under  the  plan  would  not  suffice 
for  the  State's  needs.  This  first  Legislature  working 
under  the  new  system  met  the  situation  somewhat 
crudely,  by  holding  expenditures  down  to  the  poverty- 
basis  minimum. 

"The  (Plehn)  Tax  Commission,"  said  Sen- 
ator Charles  P.  Cutten,  Chairman  of  the  1911 
Senate  Finance  Committee,  "in  its  various 
reports  assured  the  Legislature  that  it  could 
easily  raise  sufficient  increase  each  year  to  run 
the  State.  But  if  the  Legislature  had  taken 
the  early  assurances  of  the  Commission  in 
good  faith  and  increased  its  appropriations  in 
the  same  ratio  as  has  been  done  for  ten  years 
past,  the  State  would  be  now  facing  a  deficit 
of  $2,121,346,  instead  of  $450,000.  It  is  my 
opinion  that  under  the  present  rates  the  annual 
deficit  will  increase  rather  than  diminish,  as 
the  needs  of  the  State  are  increasing  faster 
than  the  revenues  of  the  public  service  corpo- 
rations." 

But  it  was  not  until  1913,  when  the  Plehn  plan 
had  been  in  operation  for  two  years,  that  the  real 
significance  of  the  system  was  fairly  understood.  By 
that  time,  it  had  been  clearly  demonstrated  that  the 
corporations  were  not,  under  the  Plehn  system,  paying 
their  just  proportion  of  taxes. 

Governor  Johnson  in  his  biennial  message  to  the 
1913  Legislature  called  attention  to  three  facts  which 


30  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

had  become  apparent  to   all  in  touch  with  the   State 
revenue  situation: 

(1)  That  the  new  tax   system  would  not  provide, 
for  the  years  1913  and  1914,  the  revenue  essential  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  State  government. 

(2)  That  small  corporations  were  paying  a  greater 
proportion  of  the  taxes  than  they  should,  and  larger 
corporations  were  paying  a  smaller  proportion  of  the 
taxes  than  they  should. 

(3)  That    the    small    householder,    proportionately, 
was  paying  a  greater  amount  of  taxes  than  the  large 
public-service  corporations. 

An  investigation  conducted  by  the  State  Board  of 
Equalization,  to  ascertain  the  relative  burden  of  State 
and  local  taxes  in  1912,  bore  out  the  Governor's  con- 
tention. This  investigation  indicated  the  average  rates 
of  taxes  paid  by  the  several  groups  on  each  $100  of 
actual  value  of  their  property  to  be: 

For  the  general  tax  payer $1.13 

For  Railroads  and  Street  Railroads 0.90 

For  Gas  and  Electric  Companies 0.75 

For  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Companies    0.90 

For   Car   Companies 0.88 

For   Express    Companies 1.54 

Governor  Johnson  made  these  findings  the  subject 
of  a  special  message  to  the  Legislature,  in  which  he 
urged  that  the  matter  of  revenue  and  taxation  be 
taken  up  during  the  first  part  of  the  session,  and  the 
State  rates  paid  by  the  corporations  relieved  of  local 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  31 

taxation   be   so   increased   as    to   compel   them   to   pay 
their  just  proportion  of  taxes.12 

Acting  under  Governor  Johnson's  recommendations, 
the  Legislature  finally  increased  the  rates  paid  by  the 
railroad  companies  18%  per  cent,  by  the  car  companies 
33*/5  per  cent,  by  the  telephone  and  telegraph  com- 
panies 20  per  cent,  by  the  gas  and  electric  com- 
panies 15  per  cent.  The  old  and  new  rates  on  each 
$100  valuation  were  as  follows: 

Old  Rates    New  Rates 

Paid  by  the  Plain  Citizen $1.13  $1.13 

"      "    Railroads    90  1.07 

"      "    Car    Companies 88  1.17 

"      "    Telephone    and    Tele- 
graph   Companies .90  1.08 

"      "    Gas       and       Electric 

Companies    75  .86 

It  will  be  seen  that  all  the  rates  paid  by  the  corpo- 
rations were,  with  the  exception  of  those  of  the  car 
companies,  left  lower  than  the  rates  paid  by  the  plain 
citizen.  The  1913  Legislature  did  not  solve  the  State's 
revenue  and  taxation  problem.13 

12  Governor  Johnson  in  his  message  summarized  the  findings  of 
the  Board  of  Equalization,  and  then  said:  "The  situation,  there- 
fore, is  obvious.  Except  in  the  single  instance  of  the  express  com- 
pany, which  probably  is  not  paying  any  greater  sum  in  taxes  than 
it  ought,  the  ordinary  taxpayer  is  paying  proportionately  twenty 
per  cent  more  than  the  public  service  corporations.  As  in  my  initial 
message,  again  I  call  to  your  attention  the  fact  that  the  revenue 
for  this  year  provided  by  the  new  method  of  taxation  will  be  in- 
sufficient to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  government  of  the  State.  It 
is  essential  that  the  additional  revenue  required  be  provided  for 
during  the  first  portion  of  your  session,  that  is,  during  the  next 
thirty  days.  I  ask,  therefore,  that  during  this  first  part  of  your 
session  you  take  up  the  subject  of  the  revenue  of  the  State  and 
increase  the  rates  of  taxation  of  the  withdrawn  corporations  to 
such  a  sum  as  shall  compel  them  to  pay  their  Just  proportion  of 
taxes." 

is  A  full  account  of  the  extraordinary  efforts  of  the  lobby  sent 
to  Sacramento  to  oppose  any  increase  in  the  corporations'  rates 
will  be  found  in  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913" — 
The  James  H.  Barry  Co.,  San  Francisco,  publisher. 


32  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

The  1915  Legislature  found  a  prospective  deficit  of 
$5,000,000  facing  the  State.  The  tax  rates  of  the 
plain  citizen,  who  had  had  five  years'  experience  in 
paying  all  the  local  taxes,  had  begun  to  climb  upward, 
until,  by  1915,  the  plain  citizen's  tax  rate  was  approxi- 
mately $1.21  on  the  $100.  But  the  corporations'  rates 
had  for  two  years  been  at  a  standstill. 

"I  ask,"  said  Governor  Johnson  in  his  1915 
message  to  the  Legislature,  in  discussing  the 
situation,  "that  immediately  you  undertake  ap- 
propriate investigation,  and  that  such  determi- 
nation be  rendered  by  you  during  the  first 
portion  of  your  session  as  shall  equalize  the 
burden  of  taxation,  and  require  the  payment 
by  the  corporations  mentioned  of  their  just 
proportion." 

To  have  compelled  the  corporations  to  pay  their 
"just  proportion"  would  have  required  an  increase 
in  their  rates  ranging  from  12  per  cent  on  the  rates 
paid  by  the  telegraph  and  telephone  companies,  to  40 
per  cent  on  the  rates  of  the  gas  and  electric  com- 
panies. But  no  such  simple  procedure  was  followed. 
The  corporations'  rates  were  not  raised  to  meet  those 
paid  by  the  plain  citizen.  The  increases  ranged  from 
7  per  cent  for  the  telephone  and  telegraph  companies 
to  15  per  cent  for  the  gas  and  electric  companies. 
Few  contended  that  an  equitable  adjustment  had  been 
made.  On  the  other  hand,  dissatisfaction  with  the 
new  rates  was  general. 

"The  proposed  rate  for  gas  and  electric 
companies,"  declared  Senator  Kehoe,  "is  an 
unjust  discrimination  against  the  people  of 
California.  If  the  people  were  in  a  position 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  33 

to  go  into  court  and  contest  these  rates,  as  a 
corporation  could  and  would  do,  such  dispro- 
portionate rates  would  not  be  established." 14 

But  they  were  established,  and,  with  a  few  changes 
of  scarcely  material  importance  in  1917,  the  rates 
paid  by  the  corporations,  which  six  years  before 
Senator  Kehoe  denounced  as  disproportionate,  had 
not  been  changed  up  to  the  time  the  1921  session 
convened.  But  during  the  six  years  that  had  inter- 
vened since  the  1915  session,  the  tax  rates  paid  by 
the  plain  citizen  had  increased,  until  investigation  made 
by  the  State's  experts  showed  that  the  tax  rates  of 
the  banks  and  corporations  on  the  ad  valorem  basis 
were  35  per  cent  lower  than  the  rates  paid  by  the 
general  tax  payer.15 

For  ten  years,  the  corporations,  banks  and  insurance 
companies  had  been  handling  the  taxation  problem 
skilfully — and  at  the  expense  of  the  plain  citizen.  To 
begin  with,  they  had  nursed  the  idea  that  a  public- 
utility  corporation  should  pay  no  tax  that  cannot  be 

i*  A  complete  account  of  the  proceedings  at  which  the  1915 
rates  of  the  corporations  were  fixed,  will  be  found  in  "The  Story  of 
the  California  Legislature  of  1915" — James  H.  Barry  Co.,  San  Fran- 
cisco, publisher. 

10  The  State  fiscal  agents  found  that  during  the  six  years,  1915- 
1921,  the  taxes  of  the  plain  citizen  had  increased  from  $1.209  on  the 
$100  valuation  to  $1.632,  an  increase  of  34.98  per  cent.  The  increase 
of  34.98  per  cent  proposed  by  the  State  authorities  in  the  gross 
earnings  and  other  special  rates  paid  by  the  corporations,  banks, 
etc.,  would  give: 

1915        Increased  at        Proposed 
Rate        34  98/100%     New  Rate 

Railroads  and  Street  Railways 5.25%  .0183  7.08% 

Gas   &   Electric    5.6  .0195  7.55 

Telephone    &    Telegraph 4.2  .0146  5.6 

Banks     1.16  .004  1.56 

Insurance    Companies    2.  .0069  2.69 

Franchises    1.2  .0041  1.62 

Car   Companies    3.95  .0138  5.33 

Express  Companies 9  .0031  1.21 


34  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

passed  on  to  the  plain  citizen.  This  policy  had  been 
given  expression  in  law.16  The  State  Railroad  Com- 
mission, in  a  public  statement,  sent  to  the  press  of 
the  State  and  to  every  member  of  the  Assembly  when 
that  body  was  about  to  vote  on  the  King  bill,  held 
that  the  law  requires  the  commission  so  to  fix  rates 
that  the  corporation's  taxes  shall  be  absorbed  in  the 
collections  from  the  public.17  Admitting  this  to  be 

16  The  fact  must  not  be  lost  sight  of,  that  under  the  system  of 
allowing  fixed  net  returns  upon  the  alleged  investment  of  public 
service    corporations    the    salaries    and    expenses    of    their    execu- 
tives,   their  attorneys,    their  experts,    etc.,    are   charged   to    "oper- 
ating expenses,"   and  the   rates  which  they  are  permitted  to  col- 
lect from   the  public  are  fixed   high   enough   to   include   these   op- 
erating expenses  plus   the  profit  which  they  are  allowed  on  their 
investments.     Furthermore,    no   itemized    accounting   of   these    ex- 
penses is  made  to  the  Railroad  Commission.    Thus,  the  elaborate 
work  of  their  tax  "experts"  is  paid  for  by  the  public;  the  cost  of 
their    expensive    lobby,    when    it    can    be    camouflaged    as    "legal 
expenses,"  and  allowed  as  "operating1  expenses,"  is  paid  for  by  the 
public.    At  the  first  part  of  the  1921  legislative  session,  for  example, 
one   train    brought    to    Sacramento  as    many   as   sixty  corporation 
presidents,    attorneys,    managers    to    oppose    the    passage    of    the 
King  bill.     These  corporation  lobbyists  monopolized  the  best  rooms 
at    the    Sacramento    hotels,    patronized    the    most    expensive    cafes 
and    hotel    dining    rooms — not    at    their    own    expense,    nor    at   the 
expense  of  the  corporations  they  represented,   nor  at  the  expense 
of   the   stockholders    of    the    corporations,    but    at    the    expense    of 
the    overburdened    utility    rate -payers    of    California.      Eventually 
the  extraordinary  expenses  of  that  corporation  lobby  will  be  met 
by  the  woman  who  bends  over  her  washtub,   by  the  farmer  who 
is  struggling  to  secure  a  living  from  the  soil  against  the  odds  of 
extortion  which  run  against  him,  by  the  workman  perplexed  that 
regardless  of  how  high  his  wages  may  be  or  how  rigid  his  economy, 
he  finds  himself  constantly  at  the  narrow  line  which  divides  bare 
existence  from  actual  want.    Every  lobbyist  whom  the  corporations 
maintain    at    Sacramento,    every    "expert,"    is    an    "operating    ex- 
pense," charged  against  the  people  of  California,  and  paid  for  by 
the  people  of  California — and  the  burden  of  the  total  of  such  en- 
trenched  wastefulness    is    becoming   too   heavy   for    the   people    of 
California,  or,  for  that  matter,  for  any  other  people,  to  bear. 

17  The  Railroad  Commission's  statement  was   as  follows:     "An 
illustration  of  the  many  ways  in  which  this  commission  is  made 
the  object  of  criticism,  which  it  is  powerless  to  avoid,   is  that  of 
increase   in   part   occasioned   when   taxes   on    the   utilities   are   In- 
creased.   In  no  degree  or  in  any  sense  do  we  desire  to  criticize  or 
pass  Judgment  on   the  wisdom   of  the   proposal    to   increase   such 
taxes   on   utilities.     Owing  to   the   abnormal   financial   demands   of 
the   State   the   Legislature   is   compelled   to   provide   approximately 
$17,000,000   additional   revenue.     If   the   Legislature   decides   that   a 
substantial  part  of  the  sum  should  be  secured  by  increasing  the 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  35 

true,  the  fact  remains  that  the  corporations  were  con- 
fronted with  a  situation  where  the  tax  increase  would 
temporarily  at  least  come  out  of  their  treasuries.  The 
rates  the  corporations  were  collecting  from  the  public, 
had  been  fixed  during  the  era  of  high  prices.  The 
corporation  managers  know  that,  tax  increase  or  no 
increase,  they  could  expect  no  further  increase  in 
their  rates  collected  from  the  public;  indeed,  they 
were  about  to  be  on  the  defensive  to  hold  the  rates 
at  the  extortionate  figure  to  which  during  the  era 
of  war  prices  they  had  been  able  to  cajole  rate-fixing 
bodies  into  allowing.18  Should  their  taxes  be  in- 
creased, the  increase  would  be  paid  out  of  the  high 
rates  already  allowed,  which  they  expected  to  be  able 
to  collect  from  the  public  regardless  of  the  outcome 
of  the  tax  controversy.  In  that  fact  lies  the  secret 
of  the  extraordinary  campaign  which  the  corporations 
waged  to  defeat  the  King  bill.  They  were  fighting 
to  escape  paying  to  the  State  some  $7,500,000  a  year 
which  from  any  angle  it  might  be  viewed,  they  should 
pay.  To  evade  paying  this  charge  against  them,  they 
not  only  sent  a  hundred  or  more  lobbyists  to  Sacra- 
mento, but  engaged  in  a  publicity  campaign,  the 
estimated  cost  of  which  was  placed  as  high  as  $1,000,- 
000.  In  the  parlance  of  the  streets,  they  were  spending 

percentage  or  gross  earnings  of  utilities,  a  question  within  its 
province  to  determine,  then  it  becomes  the  duty  of  this  commission 
under  the  law;  to  allow  such  taxes  in  operating  expenses  to  be  re- 
flected in  rates.  This  commission  is  under  the  same  obligation  to 
do  this  as  is  the  utility  to  pay  the  tax. 

is  The  Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  for  example,  in  its  official 
report  of  business  done  in  1919,  after  deducting  all  operating  ex- 
penses, taxes,  payment  on  debts,  etc.,  showed  a  net  surplus  of 
$25,768,845.  Two-thirds  of  this  came  from  California  business. 
$17,000,000,  was  distributed  in  dividends. 


36  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

$1,000,000  to  save  $7,500,000  a  year.  But  the  fact 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  corporations  will 
not  in  the  end  foot  that  advertising1  bill.  Eventually, 
on  one  pretext  or  another,  it  will  be  liquidated  by 
those  who  pay  utility-rate  taxes — the  plain  citizens 
of  California. 

Under  the  Plehn  plan  the  popular  view  has  been 
that: 

(1)  The  plain  citizens  pay  all  the  local  taxes. 

(2)  The    corporations,    banks    and    insurance    com- 
panies, etc.,   relieved  of  local  taxes,  take  care  of  the 
State  taxes. 

There  is  no  provision  in  the  law  by  which  the 
corporations  can  be  made  to  pay  local  taxes  on  their 
operating  property  to  make  up  local  deficits,  but  there 
is  provision  by  which  the  plain  citizen  can  be  forced 
to  pay  a  State  ad  valorem  tax  to  make  up  State  deficits, 
should  the  corporations,  banks,  etc.,  for  any  reason, 
fail  to  pay.  The  corporation  managers  have  unques- 
tionably planned  to  force  this  State  tax  upon  the  plain 
citizen,  but  while  awaiting  the  psychological  moment 
for  that  move  they  have  very  adroitly  been  shifting 
the  State  tax  burden  away  from  themselves.  This  has 
been  done: 

(1)    By  developing  other  sources  of  State  revenues. 

Thus  the  inheritance  taxes,  which  should  in  all 
equity  be  divided  between  State  and  counties,  have 
been  monopolized  by  the  State.  In  1911-13-15  an 
attempt  was  made  to  put  a  State  license  tax  on  saloons, 
but  this  move  was  blocked  because  of  the  alertness  of 
Bishop  Edwin  H.  Hughes,  then  resident  Bishop  of  the 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  37 

Methodist-Episcopal  Church.  The  corporations  have, 
however,  been  more  successful  with  the  business  fran- 
chise tax.  The  Plehn  plan  originally  contemplated 
collection  of  $500,000  a  year  from  this  source — a  most 
unjust  tax,  by  the  way — but  afterwards  increased  the 
estimate  to  $1,000,000.  When  it  became  evident,  early 
in  1911,  that  the  State  taxes  which  were  to  come  from 
the  corporations,  banks,  insurance  companies,  etc., 
would  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  State,  the 
business  franchise  tax  was  boosted  to  an  actual  collec- 
tion of  $1,619,588.36,  more  than  three  times  the  original 
estimate.19  This  business  franchise  tax  has  been  nursed 
along  until  $2,321,805  was  the  estimated  collection 
from  it  for  the  fiscal  year  following  the  1921  session. 
It  can  be  easily  seen  that  such  independent  sources  of 
State  revenue  tended  to  delay  the  day  of  reckoning 
that  was  to  force  upon  the  attention  of  the  people  of 
California  the  fact  that  under  the  Plehn  plan  the  cor- 
porations, while  collecting  record-breaking  rates  for  the 
service  they  are  rendering  the  public,  were  systemati- 
cally evading  their  fair  share  of  the  tax  burden. 

(2)  To  the  same  end,  there  has  been  systematic 
effort  to  shift  expenses,  which,  prior  to  1911,  had  been 
paid  out  of  the  State  treasury,  to  the  counties. 

In  this  way,  burdens  which  had,  prior  to  1911,  been 
borne  by  the  State,  and,  under  the  new  tax  system, 
were  popularly  supposed  to  be  carried  by  the  public 
service  corporations  and  banks,  have  been  shifted  to 
the  plain  citizen  who  pays  all  the  local  taxes.  Thus,  at 

19  For  discussion  of  the  business  franchise  tax,  and  the  attempt 
to  relieve  business  of  it,  see  "The  Story  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature of  1913." 


38  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

the  1920  election,  the  University  of  California,  on 
whose  governing  board  of  regents  are  represented  cor- 
porations and  banks  that  are  affected  by  the  State  tax, 
put  a  measure  on  the  ballot  under  which  the  burden  of 
maintenance  of  the  University  would  have  been  shifted 
from  the  State  to  the  counties.  Under  the  proposed 
shift,  the  cost  of  University  maintenance  would  have 
been  collected  by  an  ad  valorem  tax  upon  the  plain 
citizen  instead  of  being  paid  out  of  State  funds.  The 
proposed  shift  was  defeated,  however. 

An  even  more  striking  example  is  furnished  in  the 
shifting  of  the  State's  part  of  the  cost  of  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  public  schools.20  Here,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  increase  in  the  business  franchise  tax.  the 
subtle  influence  of  the  corporations  has  been  amaz- 
ingly effective. 

The  elementary  public  schools  are  supported  by 
funds  supplied  by  the  State,  County  and  District. 

In  1901,  ten  years  before  the  Plehn  system  of  taxa- 
tion went  into  effect,  the  State  paid  for  school  mainte- 
nance, on  the  basis  of  each  teacher,  $474  a  year,  the 
county  $322  and  the  school  district  $50.  The  Plehn 
plan  became  effective  in  1911.  By  that  year,  the 
elementary  school  maintenance  had  increased  on  the 
basis  of  each  teacher  to  $533  for  the  State,  $433  for 
the  county,  $311  for  the  district.  Two  years  later, 
1913,  the  allowance  had  decreased  $83  for  the  State 
and  increased  $51  for  the  county  and  $44  for  the  dis- 

20  For  Interesting1  discussion  of  the  shifting-  of  the  primary 
school  burden,  see  Report  of  State  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction for  the  biennial  period  ending  June  30,  1920.  Copies  of 
this  report  can  be  had  by  addressing-  the  State  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction  at  Sacramento. 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  39 

trict,  respectively.  Thus  the  plain  citizen,  the  county 
and  district  taxpayer,  had  his  burden  per  school  teacher 
increased  $95  a  year,  while  the  burden  of  the  corpo- 
rations, theoretically  the  State  taxpayer,  was  decreased 
$83  a  year,  which  gave  a  net  increase  of  $12  a  year 
per  teacher  for  1913.  The  net  increase  per  teacher  in 
1911  over  1910  had  been  nearly  ten  times  that  amount, 
$115. 

By  1920,  the  State  support  per  teacher  had  been 
decreased  from  $533  to  $467,  the  county  support  had 
been  increased  from  $433  to  $712,  while  the  district 
support  had  been  increased  from  $311  to  $408.  In 
1911,  the  State  supplied  $533  per  teacher,  the  local 
taxpayers  $744,  less  than  50  per  cent  more  than  the 
State  supplied.  In  1920,  after  nine  years  under  the 
Plehn  system,  the  State  supplied  $467,  while  the  local 
taxpayers  provided  $1120,  161  per  cent  more  per 
teacher  than  came  from  the  State.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  State's  part  in  school  maintenance  had  de- 
creased from  $474  in  1901  to  $467  in  1920,  or  $7  a 
year;  while  the  county  contribution  had  increased  from 
$322  in  1901  to  $712  in  1920  or  $390,  while  the  dis- 
trict amount  had  increased  from  $50  to  $408,  an 
increase  of  $358.  There  had,  in  a  word,  been  an 
increase  in  the  plain  citizen's  annual  tax  for  the  schools 
of  $748  a  year  per  teacher,  while  the  corporations' 
contribution,  if  we  view  them  as  the  State's  taxpayers, 
had  decreased  $7.  It  may  be  added  that  this  com- 
parison is  most  favorable  to  the  payers  of  the  State 
taxes,  the  corporations,  for  the  Legislature  in  1919 
took  drastic  steps  to  compel  the  State  to  do  its  share 


40  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

in  school  maintenance.  Under  the  1919  Act,  the  State's 
fund  for  school  maintenance  was  increased  from  $412 
paid  in  1919,  to  the  $467  used  in  our  comparison,  an 
increase  of  $55.21 

In  not  so  marked  a  degree,  there  has  been  a  steady 
decrease  in  the  State  support  of  High  Schools,  with 
corresponding  increase  in  the  High  School  support 
from  plain-citizens'  taxes. 

At  the  1920  State  election,  the  plain  citizen  under- 
took, by  means  of  the  Initiative,  to  correct  this  condi- 
tion. A  measure  was  put  on  the  ballot  to  provide 
adequate  State  support  for  the  schools.  This  measure 
carried  by  506,008  to  268,781.  Under  it,  State  sup- 

21  The  following  figures  from  the  1920  Report  of  the  State  Super- 
intendent of  Schools  Indicate  what  the  Plehn  system  of  taxation 
has  meant  to  the  citizen  taxpayer,  and  to  the  schools  of  the  State: 
Amount  Contributed  Per  Teacher  for  Support  of  Elementary  Schools 

District 

Year  State  County  Maintenance 

1901 $474.00  $322.00  $  50.00 

1902 481.00  330.00  57.00 

1903 429.00  307.00  69.00 

1904 457.00  327.00  86.00 

1905 504.00  320.00  89.00 

1906 480.00  393.00  84.00 

1907 492.00  347.00  133.00 

1908 487.00  489.00  152.00 

1909 488.00  401.00  211.00 

1910 498.00  496.00  176.00 

1911 533.00  433.00  311.00 

1912 513.00  481.00  265.00 

1913 450.00  484.00  354.00 

1914 442.00  407.00  404.00 

1915 437.00  494.00  389.00 

1916 429.00  487.00  407.00 

1917 421.00  530.00  396.00 

1918 415.00  495.00  477.00 

1919 412.00  438.00  602.00 

1920 467.00  712.00  408.00 

Amount  Contributed   Per  Teacher  for  Support  of  High  Schools 

District 

Year  State  County  Maintenance 

1916 $207.11  $831.93  $1139.80 

1917 . .  198.51  879.79  1048.78 

1918...  191.74  813.11  1165.68 

1919...  194.54  774.33  1328.00 

1920 186.65  834.35  1362.53 


Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem  41 

port  of  common  and  high  schools  has  been  increased 
approximately  $6,500,000  a  year.  But  this  is  not,  as 
has  been  represented  by  those  intent  upon  keeping  the 
State  taxes  paid  by  corporations  and  banks  down 
regardless  of  what  happens  to  the  taxes  paid  by  the 
plain  citizen,  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  voting  strength 
on  the  part  of  the  plain  people  to  heap  an  undeserved 
school-tax  burden  upon  the  State.  The  increase  in  the 
State's  share  in  the  maintenance  of  schools  under  the 
Initiative  Act  of  1920  merely  brings  such  support  up 
to  where  it  would  have  been  had  it  not  been  for  the 
slowing  down  of  the  State's  support  of  schools 
which  began  the  year  after  the  Plehn  plan  of  taxa- 
tion went  into  effect. 

(3)  The  third  policy  followed  by  the  corporations 
to  keep  the  fact  that  they  are  not  bearing  their  pro- 
portionate share  of  the  tax  burden  from  coming  up 
for  general  discussion  has  been  to  discourage  State 
expenditures.  There  has  been  so  much  cry  from  "tax 
reform"  organizations  about  State  extravagance  and 
wastefulness,  that  the  man  on  the  street  now  takes 
it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  gross  wastefulness  marks 
the  administration  of  State  affairs.  It  develops  that 
these  "tax  reform"  bodies  are  financed  by  corporations 
that  are  not  paying  their  share  of  the  tax  bill.22  As 

22  The  principal  tax  economy  organization,  at  any  rate  the 
loudest  in  its  protestations  for  economy,  is  the  so-called  Taxpayers' 
Association  of  California.  That  organization  was  publicly  de- 
nounced during  the  first  part  of  the  legislative  session  by  Mr. 
Clyde  L.  Seayey,  of  the  State  Board  of  Control.  After  charging 
the  organization  with  deliberate  misstatements  intended  to  confuse 
the  public  and  setting  forth  that  its  representatives  were  paid  by 
the  interested  corporations,  Mr.  Seavey  said:  "The  Taxpayers' 
Association  of  California  was  started  In  1916  by  Mr.  George  G. 
Tunell  of  Chicago,  tax  agent  for  the  Santa  Fe  Railroad,  who  came 
to  California  temporarily  to  teach  the  people  of  this  State  'new 


42  Unsettled  State  Tax  Problem 

a  result  of  this  sort  of  economy  there  has  been  a 
slowing-down  of  development  of  State  institutions. 
California,  with  a  population  of  2,300,000  when  the 
Plehn  plan  went  into  effect  ten  years  ago,  now  has 
a  population  of  over  3,400,000.  With  this  increase  in 
population,  has  come  increase  in  the  cost  of  State 
government,  and  increase  in  demands  upon  State 
institutions. 

Because  of  slowing  down  of  the  building  program 
at  the  State  hospitals  for  the  insane,  at  the  State  penal 
institutions,  at  the  State  schools,  there  had  come  at 
the  time  the  1921  Legislature  convened  an  overcrowd- 
ing that  could  no  longer  be  kept  from  the  public. 
Something  had  to  be  done  to  relieve  this  situation. 
The  solution  was  offered  in  the  not  unreasonable  sug- 
gestion that  tax-dodgers  be  compelled  to  bear  their 
share  of  the  tax  burden. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  the  1921  session 
opened. 

tricks  in  corporation  methods.'  Mr.  Tunell  at  that  time  brought 
with,  him  an  attorney  from  Arizona,  Mr.  Herbert  W.  Clark,  who 
is  now  president  of  the  Taxpayers'  Association,  an  attorney  for 
the  railroads  and  the  leader  of  the  railroad  lobby  who  presented 
arguments  against  a,  raise  of  tax.  Mr.  Paul  Shoup  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad  is  the  brains  and  the  money  from  that  source 
behind  Mr.  Fischer  (chief  executive  of  the  organization)  in  these 
grossly  misleading  statements.  The  misnamed  Better  America 
Federation  is  behind  Mr.  Fischer,  which  is  really  an  organization 
to  serve  the  special  interests.  There  are  others  of  lesser  im- 
portance connected  with  banks  and  corporations  backing  Fischer  in 
this  fight  against  a  proper  equalization  of  the  tax  burden.  Their 
cry  of  economy  is  but  a  barrage  to  cover  up  their  attempt  to  throw 
a  heavy  burden  of  tax  directly  upon  the  people.  They  have  at  no 
time  claimed  that  more  than  a  saving  of  one  million  dollars  could 
be  made  by  any  reorganization,  yet  in  their  statements  they  would 
lead  the  public  to  suppose  that  the  whole  deficit  of  fourteen  and 
a  halfi  million  dollars  could  be  met  without  the  raise  either  of  the 
corporation  taxes  or  an  ad  valorem  tax.  The  only  thing  the  King 
bill  proposes  is  to  make  the  corporations  pay  the  same  burden  of 
tax  as  the  general  taxpayer.  The  issue  in  this  remarkable  contest 
in  the  Legislature  is  whether  the  corporations  can  evade  their 
just  burden  of  taxation  and  force  the  people  to  pay  the  bill. 
This  would  mean  that  the  people  would  have  to  submit  to  a  levy 
of  about  22  cents  on  every  $100  of  assessed  value." 


CHAPTER  III. 
1921   LEGISLATURE  CONFRONTED  WITH  TAX  PROBLEM. 

Even  before  members  of  the  1921  Legislature 
thought  of  becoming  candidates  for  legislative  office, 
the  corporations  had  their  experts  busily  preparing 
data  to  be  used  in  efforts  to  prevent  increase  in  their 
tax  rates.  Supplied  with  the  data  which  the  corpora- 
tion experts  had  prepared,  corporation  lobbyists  were 
at  Sacramento  waiting  when  the  Senators  and  Assem- 
blymen began  to  arrive  at  the  capital. 

These  lobbyists  are  most  charming  fellows  to  meet, 
generous  and  considerate.  They  can  get  the  legisla- 
tor's wife  invited  to  desirable  places,  or  they  will  gladly 
"throw  a  free  feed,"  as  they  express  it,  into  the  legis- 
lator, if  he  will  permit  them.  In  a  thousand  and  one 
ways  they  can  make  themselves  agreeable  and  useful. 
It  is  hard  to  offend  them;  and  very  easy  to  accept 
their  attentions  and  favors. 

The  first  thing  the  1921  legislators  heard  from 
these  ingratiating  lobbyists  was  that  it  is  a  shame  the 
way  auto-trucks  are  using  the  State  highways.  There- 
fore, the  lobbyists  contended,  a  heavy  tax  should  be 
placed  on  auto-trucks — also  a  tax  should  be  placed  on 
gasoline. 

Such  a  story  over  a  cafe  dinner  told  by  a  legisla- 
tor's host,  can  be  made  most  convincing.  But  back 
of  it  all  was  the  corporations'  desire  to: 


44      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

(1)  Provide  State  revenues  from  sources  other  than 
the  corporations. 

(2)  Discourage  the  auto-trucks,  which,  while  enor- 
mously effective  in  the  best  development  of  the  State, 
are  cutting  into  the  receipts  of  the  steam  and  electric 
roads.    The  corporations  are  having  much  to  say  these 
days  about  the  power  to  tax  being  the  power  to  destroy, 
but  the  only  suggestion  of  a  destroying  tax  thus   far 
has   come    from   these   same   corporations   intent   upon 
discouraging  development  of  modern  methods  of  trans- 
portation.     By    legislation    and    adverse    publicity    the 
corporations    have    practically    driven    the    convenient 
"jitney"  bus  out  of  business,  and  by  the  same  methods 
the  corporations  now  propose  to  drive  out  the  auto- 
truck if  they  can.     If  they  succeed  in  doing  so,  Cali- 
fornia  will  be  deprived  of  one  of  the   most   effective 
agencies  for  State  development. 

The  corporation  lobbyists,  during  the  first  days  of 
the  session,  succeeded  in  creating  such  interest  in  their 
proposed  tax  on  auto-trucks,  gasoline  and  oil  products, 
that  the  matter  was  given  a  whole  evening  in  the 
series  of  discussions  before  the  joint  meetings  of  the 
Senate  and  Assembly  Committees  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation  which  were  held  to  consider  the  taxation 
problem. 

Gentlemen  in  the  business  of  selling  gasoline  and 
other  oil  products,  whose  connections  link  them  up  very 
closely  with  the  public  utility  corporations,  appeared 
before  the  committee  and  expressed  their  entire  willing- 
ness to  pay  such  a  gasoline  tax.  All  they  would  have 
to  do  would  be  to  add  the  tax  per  gallon  to  the  price 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem      45 

of  every  gallon  of  oil  products  sold.  Thus,  if  the 
current  price  of  gasoline  were  twenty-seven  cents,  and 
the  State  tax  on  gasoline  was  one  cent,  all  that  would 
be  required  to  "pass  the  tax  on"  would  be  to  charge 
twenty-eight  cents  for  the  gasoline. 

The  actual  consumers  of  gasoline  were  not  repre- 
sented at  that  hearing,  so  there  was  no  protest,  and 
the  impression  gained  ground  that  a  tax  on  gasoline  is  a 
most  righteous  and  desirable  tax.  There  was  no  sug- 
gestion, however,  that  at  least  part  of  this  proposed 
tax  go  to  the  county  in  which  the  sale  was  made, 
thereby  relieving  the  plain  citizen  of  part  of  his  tax 
burden.  Agitation  for  a  gasoline  tax  had  for  its  object 
relief  of  the  corporations,  not  of  the  plain  citizen. 

The  second  night  of  the  hearing  before  the  joint 
committees  was  given  over  to  the  public  service  corpo- 
rations. The  Senate  chamber  was  packed  with  presi- 
dents, vice-presidents,  attorneys  and  experts  of  the 
various  utilities  concerned.  The  estimate  of  over  one 
hundred  corporation  representatives  present  was  prob- 
ably conservative.  The  corporations  had  sent  the  best 
they  had,  going  as  far  as  Chicago  in  their  hunt  for 
convincing  advocates. 

This  lobby  was  at  once  dubbed  the  "billion  dollar 
lobby,"  for  it  was  estimated  that  the  interests  for 
which  it  appeared  had  at  least  paper  investments  aggre- 
gating a  billion  or  more.  It  would  have  been  more  in 
point  to  have  ascertained  the  aggregate  compensations 
of  the  hundred  or  more  men  who  constituted  that  lobby, 
and  their  expenses.  At  an  average  of  only  $5000  a 
year,  their  compensation  would  go  above  $500,000 — 


46      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

it  was  more  likely  nearer  a  million — while  their 
expenses  at  Sacramento  were  probably  above  $1000 
daily.  The  brilliant  gathering  was  in  effect  an  aggre- 
gation of  operating  expenses,  which,  eventually,  the 
plain  people  would  pay  in  utility-rate  taxes. 

Against  this  array  of  talented  "operating  expenses," 
the  State  of  California  could  afford  two  representa- 
tives only,  and  underpaid  representatives  at  that,  Clyde 
L.  Seavey  of  the  State  Board  of  Control  and  M.  D. 
Lack  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization. 

Mr.  Lack  briefly  reviewed  the  steps  of  the  investi- 
gation which  State  officials  had  made  to  determine  the 
relative  burden  of  the  tax  paid  by  the  public  utility 
corporations  and  the  tax  paid  by  plain  citizens.  The 
findings  showed  that  the  average  tax  rate  of  the  plain 
citizen  had  increased  since  1916  from  $1.21  on  each 
$100  actual  value  of  the  plain  citizens'  holdings,  to 
$1.63 — an  increase  of  approximately  35  per  cent.  This 
percentage  of  increase  carried  into  the  tax  rate  paid 
on  their  gross  earnings  by  the  public  utility  corpora- 
tions, Mr.  Lack  contended,  gave  the  new  tax  rates 
which  the  utilities  should  be  required  to  pay. 

The  corporation  lobby  presented  as  their  chief 
spokesman  in  reply  to  Mr.  Lack,  Carl  C.  Plehn,  "expert 
in  taxation  and  finance,"  professor  of  finance  at  the 
University  of  California,  author  of  the  Plehn  plan  of 
taxation.23 

23  Professor  Plehn's  appearance  on  behalf  of  the  corporations 
was  generally  criticized.  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  predicted 
that  Plehn  would  face  "an  investigation  by  the  Board  of  Regents 
of  the  State  University."  But  when  the  personnel  of  the  Board  of 
Regents  is  considered,  the  improbability  of  such  an  investigation 
became  apparent.  The  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue  of  January  19, 
1921,  declared  that  "the  ethics  of  the  action  in  the  case  of  Professor 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem      47 

Professor  Plehn,  it  developed,  had  been  for  some 
time  in  the  employ  of  corporations,  assisting  them  in 
working  out  their  taxation  problems.  He  was  pre- 
pared with  a  mass  of  figures  to  demonstrate  that  the 
railroads  were  paying  a  higher  tax  rate  than  the  plain 
citizen.  Professor  Plehn  is  a  very  able  and  convincing 
speaker.  He  apparently  won  the  entire  lobby  to  his 
way  of  thinking.  Whether  he  was  being  paid  the 
enormous  fee  for  his  services  with  which  he  was 
credited,  or  was  compensated  to  the  extent  of  the  good 
his  presentation  did  the  cause  of  the  corporations,  he 
earned  his  money. 

Professor  Plehn  granted  Mr.  Lack's  contention  that 
the  tax  rates  of  the  plain  citizen  have  been  increased 
approximately  35  per  cent,  making  $1.63  on  the  $100 
valuation.  But  Professor  Plehn  held  that  the  railroad 
tax  rates,  ad  valorem  basis,  have  increased  also,  until 
the  railroad  taxes  were  "over  2.6  per  cent  of  the  actual 
value  of  the  railroad  property  as  it  was  at  the  time 
the  1921  session  convened,  and  over  1.9  per  cent  of 
the  value  of  the  same  property  as  it  stood  in  1916."24 

Plehn  is  difficult  to  understand.  Professor  Plehn  is  himself  the 
author  of  the  law  which  the  Legislature  intends  to  apply.  He  has 
been  retained  as  its  tax  expert  with  additional  compensation  on 
many  occasions,  when  he  enunciated  certain  principles  and  battled 
for  certain  facts,  all  of  which  he  repudiates  when  he  appears  as 
the  paid  representative  of  the  corporations.  As  head  of  the 
Economics  Department  of  the  University  of  California  Professor 
Plehn  receives  a  salary  of  thousands  a  year.  California  reasonably 
might  expect  one  of  her  servants  not  to  hire  himself  out  against 
her  own  interests  to  tear  down  the  very  argument*  which  Professor 
Plehn  defended  before." 

24  Professor  Plehn  ascribed  this  increase  to:  Increase  of  the 
gross  receipts  of  corporations,  together  with  a  marked  decline  in 
the  value  of  railroad  property,  caused  by  the  increase  in  operating 
expenses  due  to  wage  increases  and  high  cost  of  materials.  To 
reach  his  conclusions,  Professor  Plehn  employed  the  stock  and 
bond  basis  of  valuation.  Replying  to  Professor  Plehn,  Clyde  L. 
Seavey,  of  the  State  Board  of  Control,  pointed  out  that  in  times  of 


48       The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

To  reach  these  conclusions,  Professor  Plehn  employed 
as  his  basis  the  stock  and  bond  method  of  valuing 
corporation  property. 

Professor  Plehn  also  held  that  the  corporations, 
banks  and  insurance  companies — the  "separation"  as 
Professor  Plehn  technically  put  it — could  not  carry  the 
amount  of  tax  which  the  State  proposed  to  put  upon 
them.  To  employ  his  own  figure,  a  fifteen-ton  truck 
could  not  be  made  to  carry  a  thirty-ton  load.25 

In  conclusion  Professor  Plehn  stated  that  instead 
of  increasing  the  rates  paid  by  the  corporations,  an 
ad  valorem  tax  for  State  purposes  could  be  imposed 
on  general  property,  or  an  income  tax  could  be  levied, 
or  a  tax  placed  upon  gasoline. 

unsettled  conditions,  such  as  at  present  prevail,  the  stock  and  bond 
method  of  valuing  the  property  of  corporations  is  unsound  and  can 
not  be  used.  'For  this  reason,  Mr.  Seavey  showed,  the  stock  and 
bond  method  of  valuation  had  not  in  1915  been  followed  in  arriving 
at  corporation  values.  That  year,  Professor  Plehn  was  serving1 
on  the  side  of  the  State.  The  1915  report  on  tax  conditions  to  the 
Governor  and  the  Legislature,  which  Professor  Plehn  joined  Mr. 
Seavey  in  signing,  contains  the  following: 

"Since  It  was  obviously  Impossible  under  the  present  conditions 
of  business  to  make  an  appraisement  of  general  property  values  or 
to  ascertain  the  stock  and  bond  shares  of  public  utilities  in  the 
manner  in  which  these  things  were  done  in  1912,  some  new  method 
had  to  be  devised  for  arriving  at  the  facts  needed  and  in  particular 
to  answer  the  question  whether  the  general  burden  of  taxation 
upon  real  estate  of  the  State  has  increased  and  by  how,  much. 
The  method  adopted  was  to  assume  that  thet  investigation  of  1912 
as  made  by  the  Board  of  Equalization  was  a  satisfactory  starting 
point  and  to  inquire  Into  the  changes  which  have  taken  place  since 
then." 

25  The  Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  in  its  official  report  of 
business  done  in  1919,  after  deducting  all  operating  expenses,  taxes, 
payments  on  debts,  etc.,  showed  a  net  surplus  of  $25,768,845.  Two- 
thirds  of  this  came  from  business  in  California.  $17,000,000  was 
distributed  in  dividends.  The  1921  report  of  the  State  Superin- 
tendent of  Banks  shows  that  "during  a  period  of  rather  violent 
financial  readjustment  .  .  .  the  State  banks  of  California  have 
reached  new  high  records  both  for  total  resources  and  deposits 
and  also  for  annual  increase  in  each.  .  .  .  The  combined  assets  of 
the  National  and  State  institutions,  as  of  date  June  30,  1920,  is 
$2,440,487,000."  From  other  sources  it  is  known  that  the  banks  of 
the  State  had  during  1920  paid  dividends  to  stockholders  ranging 
from  13  per  cent  to  36  per  cent. 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem      49 

In  replying  to  Professor  Plehn,  Clyde  L.  Seavey 
of  the  State  Board  of  Control  showed  that,  in  un- 
settled times  such  as  these,  because  of  the  great  depre- 
ciation in  the  value  of  outstanding  stocks  and  bonds, 
by  reason  of  the  unprecedented  demand  for  money 
and  the  issuance  of  new  and  exceptionally  attractive 
securities,  stocks  and  bonds  reflect  an  unduly  depressed 
valuation  of  the  physical  properties  behind  them;  that 
for  this  reason  the  stock  and  bond  method  was  not 
followed  in  1915,  and  that  the  State  experts,  in  arriv- 
ing at  their  conclusions  in  1921,  had  adopted  the  same 
method  which  had  been  followed  five  years  before,  a 
method  to  which  Professor  Plehn,  Mr.  Seavey  held, 
then  on  the  State's  side  of  the  controversy,  had  sub- 
scribed.26 

26  In  arriving-  at  their  conclusions  the  State's  experts  used  as 
the  starting  point  the  figures  obtained,  by  the  investigation  made 
in  1916  by  the  State*  Tax  Commission.  They  were  forced  to  pro- 
ceed in  this  manner  for  two  reasons:  First,  the  Legislature  had 
made  no  money  available  for!  the  comprehensive  gathering  of  data 
and  the  determination  of  the  underlying  values  of  general  property 
and  of  corporation  property.  Second,  if  such  money  had  been 
available  it  is  a  recognized  fact  that  particularly  in  the  case  of 
corporations,  no  accurate  determination  of  their  values  could  have 
been  obtained.  If  a  physical  valuation  had  been  attempted,  the 
time  necessary  and  the  expenditure  would  have  been  prohibitory. 
If  a  stock  and  bond  value  had  been  attempted,  the  existing  con- 
dition of  the  stock)  and  bond  market  would  not  have  reflected  the 
true  value  of  the  property  any  more  accurately  than  could  have 
been  obtained  under  the  conditions  of  1914  and  1915.  The  State 
Board  of  Equalization,  therefore,  was  forced  to  rely  upon  the 
method  adopted  in  1915,  which  method  was  proved  to  be  correct  by 
the  determination  made  in  1916.  The  actual  procedure  Is  as  follows: 
There  were  collected  from  the  cities  and  counties,  the  total  city, 
county  and  district  taxes  paid  by  non-operative  property  and 
the  total  assessed  values  of  non-operative  property  for  1916  and 
for  1920.  The  total  assessed  value  of  non-operative  property  in 
1916  was  $2,917,323,351.  The  assessed  value  of  non-operative  prop- 
erty 1920  was  $3,784,252,614.  This  was  an  increase  in  assessed 
value  during  that  period  of  29.716  per  cent.  The  total  tax  paid  by 
non-operative  property  in,  cities,  counties  and  districts  in  1916  was 
$82,529,839.06.  If  there  had  been  no  Increase  in  the  tax  rates,  the 
tax  would,  have  increased  just  as;  much  as  the  rolls  increased,  or 
by)  29.716  per  cent,  or  $24,524,566.97,  a  total  of  $107,054,406.03.  But 
the  taxes  levied  in  1920  amounted  to  $144,524,310.12.  In  1916,  which 


50      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

The  joint  committees  met  after  the  hearing  to 
decide  upon  rates.  The  attitude  of  the  majority  of 
the  committee  was  expressed  by  Senator  Nelson. 

"As  I  understand  it,"  said  Nelson,  "we  are  con- 
sidering equalization  of  taxes  as  between  the  general 
taxpayer  and  the  corporations.  If  private  property  is 
paying  $1.63  on  the  $100  valuation,  why  should  not 
the  public  utility  pay  at  the  same  rate.  The  increase 
of  rates  suggested  would  equalize  the  taxes.  Can  we 
say  to  our  constituents  that  we  allowed  one  rate  to 
apply  to  private  property  and  a  lower  rate  to  the 
property  of  the  corporations?" 

"I  quite  agree  with  Senator  Nelson,"  said  Senator 
Eden.  "I  would  not  consent  to  levy  a  greater  tax  on 
the  corporations  than  is  levied  on  the  general  tax- 
payer, but  the  corporations  should  pay  as  great  a  tax 
as  the  private  citizen  pays.  We  have  heard  much 
about  the  corporations  being  in  a  bad  way,  but  thou- 
sands of  business  men  are  in  a  bad  way  also.  The 
business  men  are  not  here  asking  relief  from  taxes. 
Why  the  corporations?" 

Senator  King  announced  that  he  did  not  like  the 

is  the  year  taken  as  the  basis,  the  average  tax  rate  on  true  value 
for  general  property  was  determined  to  be  1.209  per  cent.  Then 
to  find  to  what  figure  the  average  burden  on  general  property  tax 
had  increased,  it  must  first  be  determined  what  the  average  rate  on 
true  value  is  for  1920  by  a  solving  of  a  proportion  as  follows: 
$107,054,406.03,  which  would  have  been  raised  had  there  been  no 
increase  in  tax  rate,  is  to  $144,524,310.12,  which  is  the  amount  of 
tax  actually  levied,  as  1.209,  the  rate  determined  in  1916,  is  to  a 
new  rate  to  be  established.  Multiplying  $144,524,310.12  by  1.209  and 
dividing  the  result  by  $107,054,406.03,  it  gives  the  present  average 
tax  rate  of  1.632  per  cent.  This  tax  rate,  namely,  1.632  per  cent, 
is  34.98  per  cent  greater  than  the  average  tax  rate  established  in 
1916,  namely,  1.209  per  cent.  This  means  that  on  this  basis  of 
calculation,  general  property  on  the  average  is  bearing  34.98  per 
cent  more  tax  burden  than  in  1916  and  this  is  the  percentage  that 
the  Board  of  Equalization  recommended  to  the  Legislature  to  de- 
termine the  increase  upon  corporation  rates. 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem       51 

Plehn  plan  of  taxation  at  all,  but,  he  contended,  it  is 
the  State  system  and  until  it  is  changed  it  must  be 
followed. 

Assemblyman  W.  F.  Beal  of  Imperial  fairly  ex- 
pressed the  position  of  the  minority  when  he  gave  it 
as  his  opinion  that  an  ad  valorem  tax  should  be  levied. 

The  committee,  however,  followed  a  different  policy. 
The  rates  finally  levied  upon  the  corporations  were 
those  which  had  been  recommended  by  the  State's 
experts. 

The  cry  was  thereupon  raised  about  the  lobbies  that 
if  the  taxes  of  the  corporations  were  increased,  many 
corporations  would  be  forced  into  bankruptcy.  From 
all  parts  of  California  came  local  representatives  of 
the  corporations  to  plead  with  the  home  assemblyman 
or  senator  not  to  interfere  with  the  corporations' 
taxes.27  Mr.  Harley  Booth,  Southern  Pacific  attorney 
and  tax  expert  appeared  to  be  the  general  in  charge 
of  the  imposing  lobby  which  crowded  hotel  halls  and 
capitol  corridors. 

Little  was  said   of  the  ability  of  the  more  impor- 

27  Edward  H.  Hamilton,  the  veteran  legislative  correspondent, 
in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  for  January  18,  thus  describes  the 
scene  at  the  capital:  "It  looked  like  old  times  around  the  cor- 
ridors and  hotel  lobbies.  Corporation  men  of  the  high  type  were 
on  hand — sixty  or  more  came  in  last  night  and  today.  Men  who 
are  supposed  to  be  able  to  influence  legislators  were  sent  for  from 
far  and  near  and  responded  to  the  /call.  Room  352  at  the 
Sacramento  Hotel  was  made  corporation  headquarters.  This  is  the 
room  of  former  Assemblyman  Al.  Bartlett  of  Los  Angeles,  who  is 
lobbyist  for  all  the  power  company  interests.  Thence  repaired 
railroad  presidents,  like  Palmer  of  the  Northwestern  Pacific,  and 
tax  lawyers,  like  Harley  Booth  of  the  Southern  Pacific's  law  de- 
partment. Booth  seemed  to  settle  into  the  place  of  general  in  com- 
mand. No  legislator  needed  to  pay  for  his  own  meals — corporation 
money  was  plentiful  to  provide  the  feed  bag.  Again  things  looked 
like  old  times,  and  needy  legislators  seemed  as  quick  as  ever 
to  accept  invitations.  'The  old  guard  has  come  out  of  its 
hole  at  last,'  was  word  that  came  from  the  Governor's  office." 


52      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

tant  corporations  to  pay  taxes,  but  the  "lame  ducks" 
among  them  were  paraded  for  legislative  sympathy. 
This  was  particularly  true  of  the  street  railroad 
companies. 

Many  street  railroad  companies,  for  one  reason 
or  another,  overcapitalization,  mismanagement,  poor 
equipment  and  service,  lack  of  foresight  and  enter- 
prise, competition  of  more  modern  means  of  trans- 
portation, etc.,  can  be  shown  to  be  in  a  bad  way.  But 
they  are  not  necessarily  so  hard  pressed  as  their  bal- 
ance sheets  make  it  appear.  For  example,  when  a 
group  of  financiers  control  the  hydro-electric  power 
company  which  supplies  a  street-car  corporation,  oper- 
ated by  the  same  financiers,  with  electric  energy,  it  is 
not  impossible  that  the  car  company  is  paying  a  higher 
rate  for  its  power  than  would  be  necessary  if  the  power 
used  came  from  an  independent  source.  The  losses 
of  the  car  corporations  are,  in  such  a  situation,  the 
gains  of  the  hydro-electric  corporations.  However 
convincing  the  car  corporation's  losses  may  be  as  an 
argument  for  increasing  the  car  corporation's  passenger 
rates,  or  for  reducing  its  tax  charge,  the  situation  is 
not  without  profit  for  the  financiers  involved. 

But  for  purposes  of  taxation,  under  the  very  scien- 
tific Plehn  plan,  the  lame-duck  street-car  corporations 
are  grouped  with  the  enormously  prosperous  long-haul 
railroads.  The  Plehn  plan  provides  that  the  same  tax 
rate — gross  income  basis — must  be  charged  both.  Thus, 
in  increasing  the  gross-earnings  rate  of  the  railroads 
from  5.25  to  7  per  cent,  the  rates  of  the  street-car 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem       53 

companies  would  automatically  be  raised  to  7  per  cent 
also. 

The  short-haul  railroads  are  grouped  with  the  long- 
line  roads,  so  their  taxes  were  due  to  be  raised  to 
7  per  cent — gross  earnings  basis — also.  They,  too, 
raised  the  cry  of  poverty,  and  were  given  opportunity 
by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation, 
before  it  took  final  action,  to  tell  why  they  could  not 
stand  the  proposed  increase. 

After  the  short  lines  had  been  heard,  Percy  V. 
Long,  for  the  insurance  companies,  told  the  commit- 
tees of  the  disadvantage  of  the  tax  burden  to  insurance 
companies,  and  predicted  that,  if  the  insurance  com- 
panies' taxes  were  increased,  the  weaker  companies 
would  be  driven  out  of  business.  Mr.  Long's  presen- 
tation concluded,  John  S.  Drum  spoke  for  the  banks. 
Mr.  Drum,  in  a  well-presented  argument,  contended 
that  the  proposed  increase  in  the  banks'  tax  rate  would 
raise  the  banks'  ratio  of  taxes  to  a  true  value  of  1.88, 
which  would  exceed  the  1.63,  the  average  plain  citizen's 
tax  rate  determined  by  the  Board  of  Equalization,  by 
15.44  per  cent.  He  contended  that  the  banks'  rate 
should  not  be  fixed  higher  than  1.33  per  cent  on  the 
bank's  capital  stock,  surplus  and  undivided  profits. 

Mr.  Lack  in  reply  pointed  out  that  in  arriving  at 
their  conclusions,  the  banks  were  taking  their  present 
assessed  values  and  adding  them  to  the  capital  surplus 
and  undivided  profit.  There  were  two  reasons,  Mr. 
Lack  contended,  why  this  method  could  not  be  deemed 
equitable.  In  the  first  place,  the  rate  to  be  established 
for  banks  for  State  assessment  was  only  upon  that 


54      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

part  of  bank  property  which  is  segregated  under  the 
Constitution  and  in  making  the  calculation  upon  that 
property,  it  would  not  be  equitable  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  real  property  which  is  taxed  locally  and 
through  an  ad  valorem  tax.  The  banks  also  by  this 
process  assumed  present  values  on  their  property 
which  had  not  been  assumed  either  on  general  prop- 
erty in  determining  the  rate  of  1.632,  nor  upon  other 
corporations  in  fixing  their  tax  rates. 

Mr.  Seavey  followed  Mr.  Lack. 

In  using  the  method  which  the  State's  experts  had 
adopted  as  the  only  one  which  could  be  followed  under 
current  conditions,  Mr.  Seavey  held,  the  State  was 
only  concerned  in  the  average  burden  of  tax  on  prop- 
erty generally  and  could  use  no  special  figures  of  any 
particular  property  or  any  group  of  properties  where 
only  the  present  values  for  those  particular  groups  were 
presented. 

"I  take  it,"  said  Senator  Jones,  after  the  committee 
had  heard  Mr.  Lack's  statement,  "that  we  are  inter- 
ested in  equalizing  taxes  as  between  the  general  tax- 
payer and  the  corporations.  We  have  accepted  the 
Board  of  Equalization's  figures  for  the  railroads  and 
other  groups.  We  would  be  inconsistent  were  we  to 
upset  this  basis  in  the  case  of  the  banks.  We  must  be 
consistent  and  apply  the  same  rule  to  all  classes  of 
corporations." 

Nevertheless,  Senator  Arbuckle  moved  that  the  bank 
tax  on  capital  stock  surplus  and  undivided  profits  be 
fixed  at  1.33,  the  figure  named  by  Mr.  Drum. 

The    question    was    put    to    Mr.    Seavey    what    he 


The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem       55 

thought  the  proper  rate  for  banks  would  be,  taking 
into  consideration  all  allowance  for  possible  double 
taxation. 

Mr.  Seavey  replied  1.45. 

"We  must  not,"  announced  Senator  Rigdon,  "go 
back  on  our  experts.  I  move  that  Senator  Arbuckle's 
motion  be  amended  to  make  the  bank's  rate  1.45." 

Senator  Rigdon's  motion  prevailed.  The  1.45  rate 
for  banks  was  adopted. 

In  the  case  of  the  insurance  companies,  the  com- 
mittee decided  to  fix  the  State  tax  on  their  gross 
premiums  at  2.6  per  cent. 

The  tales  of  poverty  which  the  well-groomed, 
expensively  dining,  generously  entertaining  lobbyists  of 
the  street  railroads  had  been  pouring  into  the  ears  of 
the  harassed  legislators  had  created  a  feeling  of 
extreme  sympathy  for  the  poverty  stricken  street-car 
corporations.  So  the  committee  had  Attorney-General 
U.  S.  Webb  before  it,  to  find  out  if  violence  could 
safely  be  done  the  scientific  adjustments  of  the  Plehn 
plan  by  separating  the  street-cars  from  the  steam  roads, 
the  only  resemblance  between  the  two  classes  of  roads 
being  that  their  cars  run  on  rails. 

General  Webb  held  that  the  Legislature  could  fix 
one  rate  for  the  street-cars  and  another  for  the  steam 
roads,  without  endangering  the  proposed  Act  making 
the  changes  in  rates.  The  proposal  was  to  leave  the 
gross-earnings  tax  of  the  street-car  corporations  at 
5.25  per  cent,  and  raise  the  rate  of  the  steam  roads 
to  7.  The  worst  that  could  happen  under  the  arrange- 
ment, General  Webb  held,  would  be  a  court  ruling 


56      The  1921  Legislature  Tax  Problem 

that  the  7  per  cent  held  against  both  groups.  He 
inclined  to  the  opinion  that  the  5.25  per  cent  rate  for 
street-cars,  however,  would  hold. 

On  General  Webb's  showing,  the  rate  for  street- 
cars was  left  at  5.25.  It  was  not  deemed  feasible, 
however,  to  attempt  separation  of  the  short-line  from 
the  long-line  steam  roads. 

The  work  of  the  joint  committees  was  then  con- 
cluded. The  fight  for  equitable  tax  rates  was  trans- 
ferred from  committee  room  to  Senate  floor. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  SENATE  PASSES  THE  KING  TAX 


The  effectively  worked-up  opposition  to  the  in- 
creases in  the  corporation  and  bank  tax  rates  had  been 
gathering  momentum  from  the  day  the  Legislature  had 
convened.  As  the  committees  on  revenue  and  taxa- 
tion refused  to  exempt  group  after  group  of  the  cor- 
porations affected,  this  opposition  increased,  until  the 
final  stand  for  increase  in  the  banks'  rates  brought  a 
storm  of  protest  upon  the  Senate.  A  stream  of  tele- 
grams from  banks,  protesting  against  the  proposed 
increases,  poured  in.  One  Senator  kept  count  for  a 
time  and  found  that  he  averaged  nine  telegrams  an 
hour.28  But  the  good  advice  contained  in  these  bank 
messages  was  so  clearly  inspired,  the  senders'  igno- 
rance of  the  situation  at  Sacramento  so  apparent,  that 
they  had  little  effect. 

The  fight  had  now  reached  a  point  where  the  oppo- 
sition to  increase  the  corporation  rates  had  all  the 

28  The  following  are  samples  of  telegrams  received  by  members 
•while  the  King  bill  was  pending  in  the  Senate: 

From  Pasadena:  "The  Pasadena  banks  vigorously  protest  In- 
crease of  bank  tax  rate  to  1.45  because  such  rate  is  out  of  propor- 
tion to  taxes  paid  by  people  of  State  generally.  We  expect  you 
to  use  your  influence  with  committee  in  behalf  of  fair  deal  for 
banks.  Pasadena  Clearing  House  Association." 

From  Pasadena:  "Desire  to  associate  ourselves  with  others  In 
urging  upon  you  difficulties  which  will  be  experienced  by  many 
railroads  of  the  State  in  meeting  increased  taxation  reported  as 
intended  by  Legislature.  Believe  legislation  placing  tax  on  trucks 
and  bus  companies  to  secure  part  of  revenue  needed  would  be  a 
fair  method  to  pursue.  J.  S.  MACDONNELi,,  President  First 
National  Bank,  Pasadena." 


58  Senate  Passes  King  Bill 

better  of  it.  All  they  had  to  do  to  defeat  the  pro- 
posed increase  was  to  prevent  fourteen  of  the  forty 
Senators  from  voting  for  the  bill.  It  made  no  differ- 
ence whether  the  fourteen  voted  against  the  bill  or 
didn't  vote  at  all.  Indeed,  if  twenty-six  Senators  voted 
for  the  measure,  and  fourteen  refrained  from  voting, 
even  though  not  a  vote  were  cast  against  it,  the  bill 
would  be  defeated. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  supporters  of  the  increase 
were  obliged  to  have  twenty-seven  Senators  present 
and  voting  for  the  bill  to  pass  it.  Such  is  one  of 
the  many  advantages  which  the  corporations  have 
under  the  Plehn  taxation  plan. 

The  Senate  debate  on  the  King  bill  began  at  3 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  January  18.  Chamberlin 
for  the  opposition  announced  himself  in  favor  of 
levying  an  ad  valorem  tax  upon  the  plain  citizens  for 
State  purposes.  Rominger  debated  the  problem  of 
economy  and  retrenchment,  although  that  question  was 
not  in  issue,  the  issue  being  equalization  of  tax  rates. 
Senator  Sample  announced  that  he  was  "not  afraid  of 
an  ad  valorem  tax"  to  be  levied  upon  the  plain  citizen. 
All  of  which  had  little  bearing  upon  the  real  issue. 

The  supporters  of  the  increase  had  nothing  but 
condemnation  for  the  Plehn  plan  of  taxation;  they 
admitted  the  difficulties  of  equitable  adjustment  under 
it;  Senator  King,  author  of  the  bill,  called  the  system 
unjust;  Senator  Duncan  and  Senator  Carr  agreed  that 
the  Plehn  plan  is  the  one  under  which  the  taxes  of 
the  State  must  be  levied,  and  the  duty  of  the  Legis- 
lature was  to  proceed  to  levy  them  on  the  most  equi- 


Senate  Passes  King  Bill  59 

table  basis  possible  under  the  system.  That,  they 
contended,  was  accomplished  in  the  King  bill. 

Senator  Jones  put  the  issue  in  a  sentence,  when 
he  declared  it  to  be  strictly  an  issue  between  the  people 
of  the  State  and  the  corporations. 

"The  People  of  Los  Angeles,"  said  Senator  Jones 
replying  to  the  opposition,  "who  Senator  Rominger 
says  are  crying  for  economy,  gave  larger  majorities 
for  the  measures  on  the  November  ballot  calling  for 
further  expenditures  of  the  State's  money  than  in  any 
other  district  in  the  State.  They  returned  overwhelm- 
ing majorities  for  the  increase  in  highway  bond  inter- 
est, the  increase  in  taxes  asked  by  the  University  of 
California  regents,  the  increase  in  teachers'  salaries  and 
for  all  of  the  other  measures  that  would  mean  a  greater 
outlay  of  the  State's  funds. 

"This  is  strictly  an  issue  between  the  people  of  the 
State  and  the  corporations.  And  I  would  like  to  ask 
who  there  is  here  lobbying  in  the  interest  of  the  mass 
of  the  people.  There  is  no  one.  But  the  corporations 
have  the  most  powerful  lobby  I  have  ever  seen,  and 
they  are  using  every  kind  of  influence  to  win  the  votes 
of  the  members. 

"The  Senate  has  been  flooded  today  with  telegrams 
from  banks  and  corporate  interests  in  every  city  in 
the  State.  I  have  received  as  many  as  the  other  mem- 
bers. One  of  them  is  from  my  own  bank  pleading 
that  the  tax  rate  increase  be  defeated.  And  that  is 
a  bank  from  which  I  have  but  recently  received  a 
check  for  dividends  of  14  per  cent.  It  is  a  bank  that 
I  know  has  been  earning  from  20  to  24  per  cent  in 
recent  years." 


60  Senate  Passes  King  Bill 

When  the  vote  was  taken,  Senator  Anderson  failed 
to  respond  to  his  name;  Senators  Purkett  and  Irwin 
were  absent  from  the  capital.  When  Slater,  thirty- 
ninth  name  on  roll-call,  voted  for  the  bill,  the  vote 
stood  26  for  the  measure,  and  10  against.  The  for- 
tieth Senator,  Yonkin,  had  the  deciding  vote.  And 
Yonkin  voted  "Yes." 

The  King  bill  had  received  the  necessary  twenty- 
seven  Senate  votes  for  its  passage,  and  not  a  vote  to 
spare. 

But  before  Lieutenant-Governor  Young  could  an- 
nounce the  result,  Senator  Yonkin,  seeing  that  his  vote 
had  passed  the  bill,  arose  at  his  desk  and  changed  his 
vote  from  "yes"  to  "no." 

This  left  the  King  bill  with  only  twenty-six  votes, 
one  short  of  the  number  necessary  to  pass  it.  The  bill 
stood  defeated  with  a  vote  of  twenty-six  votes  for  its 
passage,  and  eleven  against  its  passage.  Eleven  Sena- 
tors were  thus  defeating  the  purpose  of  twenty-six.29 

29  During  thet  roll-call  on  the  King  Bill  the  corporation  lobby 
Invaded  the  Senate  Chamber,  crowded  about  the  desks  of  the 
Senators,  and,  while  the  vote  was  pending,  urged  them  to  vote 
"no,"  C.  M.  Oddie,  for  example,  representing  the  short-haul  rail- 
roads, requested  Senator  Lester  G.  Burnett  to  change  his  vote 
from  "yes"  to  "no."  Burnett  flatly  refused,  declaring  that  he 
never  changed  his  vote.  The  Sacramento  Bee,  in  its  issue  of 
January  19,  describes  the  scenes  in  the  Senate  Chamber  as  follows: 

"Like  a  drama  revived  after  a  long  sleep,  the  Senate  of  Cali- 
fornia staged  a  show  last  night  whose  popularity  expired  some  ten 
years  ago.  It  might  be  named  'Law  by  Lobby.'  In  the  last  decade 
California  has  neither  seen  nor  suffered  from  such  bold,  open, 
vicious  operations  of  a  corporation  lobby  as  disgraced  the  Senate 
Chamber  last  night  while  its  members  were  locked  in  an  all-night 
call-of-the-Senate  to  secure  a  vote  on  the  increase  of  corporation 
taxes.  Lobbyists  for  corporations  of  all  kinds  accosted  Senators  in 
their  seats,  pleading,  arguing,  cajoling,  working  like  beavers  all 
over  the  Senate  floor,  a  reckless,  boastful  crew  proud  of  its  success 
in  blocking  the  passage  of  a  just  tax  law.  What  they  did  offer 
open  and  generally  to  the  Senators  was  whisky.  And  a  lobbyist 
who  uses  whisky  as  a  persuader  in  the  very  halls  of  the  Senate 
while  that  body  is  in  session  may  offer  other  things.  In  the  old 
days  of  the  Southern  Pacific  machine  conditions  may  have  been 
somewhat  worse,  but  not  much.  There  was  little  a  lobby  could  do 
which  was  not  done  last  night." 


Senate  Passes  King  Bill  61 

Before  the  vote  was  announced  the  Senate  doors 
were  locked  and  the  Sergeant-at-arms  ordered  to  bring 
in  the  absent  Senators.  If  one  absentee  voted  for 
the  bill,  it  would  be  passed,  provided  none  of  the 
Senators  who  had  voted  "yes"  changed  to  "no."  But 
it  was  bluntly  recognized  that  Senator  Hart  of  Los 
Angeles,  who  had  voted  "yes,"  would  change  to  "no." 
There  were  rumors  that  two  other  Senators  who  had 
voted  "yes"  would  also  change.  Senator  Breed,  who 
had  been  counted  upon  to  support  the  bill,  but  who 
had  suddenly  taken  the  leadership  of  the  opposition, 
boastfully  announced  to  the  bill's  supporters  that  he 
could  bring  to  them  fourteen  Senators  then  in  the 
Senate  chamber  who  would  vote  "no."  This,  of  course, 
would  mean  the  bill's  defeat,  regardless  of  how  the 
three  absentees  might  vote. 

Nevertheless,  the  progressive  leaders  insisted  upon 
the  absent  members  being  brought  in.  There  was, 
too,  good  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  those  who 
had  voted  with  the  opposition  would,  with  better  under- 
standing, of  the  situation,  vote  for  the  bill.  Senators 
McDonald  and  Godsil  of  San  Francisco,  for  example, 
had  been  counted  for  the  measure.  They  had  voted 
"no."  These  two  gentlemen  were  generally  reported 
to  have  been  generously  entertained  the  night  before. 
They  were  far  from  well;  indeed,  their  physical  condi- 
tion was  such  that  it  was  difficult  for  them  to  concen- 
trate upon  so  complicated  a  problem  as  the  King  bill 
presented,  or,  for  that  matter,  anything  else.  The 
Senate  doors  were  locked  about  six  p.  m. ;  it  was 
quite  possible,  provided  nothing  intervened  to  prevent, 


62  Senate  Passes  King  Bill 

that  by  midnight  the  health  of  Senators  McDonald 
and  Godsil  would  be  so  far  improved  as  to  enable 
them  to  give  the  King  bill  that  serious  attention  to 
which  its  importance  entitled  it.  The  Senate  settled 
down — without  supper  or  opportunity  to  get  any — to 
a  long  wait  for  their  absent  colleagues  to  return,  and 
their  indisposed  colleagues  to  recover. 

During  the  wait,  the  "billion-dollar  lobby"  invaded 
the  Senate  chamber,  and,  with  amazing  assurance, 
urged  the  bill's  defeat.  Harley  Booth,  tax  attorney 
for  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  headed  the  group 
that — until  they  were  finally  ordered  out  of  the  Senate 
chamber — went  from  Senator  to  Senator  who  had  voted 
for  the  bill  urging  him  to  cast  his  vote  against  it. 

Midnight  came,  with  Senators  Irwin  and  Purkitt 
still  absent.  Nor  had  the  indisposed  Senators  McDon- 
ald and  Godsil  made  much  progress  toward  recovery. 
Indeed,  their  condition  was,  if  anything,  worse.  The 
Senators  settled  down  for  an  all  night  stay  of  it. 
They  were  not  comfortable,  and  perhaps  were  growing 
irritable.  At  any  rate,  along  about  four  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  when  the  fact  became  too  well  known 
for  further  polite  ignoring  that  members  of  the  "billion 
dollar  lobby"  had  brought  whisky  into  the  cloak  rooms 
of  the  Senate  chamber,  and  that  rather  free  use  had 
been  made  of  it,  demand  was  made  that  the  Senate 
chamber  be  cleared  of  them.  And  it  was  cleared. 
Seven  hours  later  the  absent  Senators  had  returned. 
Curiously  enough,  after  the  departure  of  the  lobbyists 
Senators  McDonald  and  Godsil  recovered  rapidly. 

When    the    King   bill    was    put    to    vote,    Senators 


Senate  Passes  King  Bill  63 

Godsil  and  McDonald  changed  their  votes  from  "no" 
to  "yes";  two  of  the  Senators  who  had  been  absent, 
Anderson  and  Irwin,  voted  "yes";  Chamberlin,  still 
against  the  bill,  changed  his  vote  to  "yes"  that  he 
might  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  it  had 
been  passed;  Senator  Purkitt,  the  third  of  the  ab- 
sentees, voted  "no";  and  Hart,  as  had  been  recognized 
he  would,  changed  his  vote  from  "yes"  to  "no."  These 
changes  fixed  the  Senate  vote  at  30  for  the  King  bill 
•to  10  against,  three  more  affirmative  votes  than  the 
number  required  for  its  passage.30 

The  defeat  of  the  corporations'  lobby  in  the  Senate 
did  not  mean  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  any  means. 
The  death  of  one  member  of  the  Assembly  had  reduced 
the  number  of  Assemblymen  who,  by  failing  to  appear 
or  by  voting  against  the  bill  could  defeat  it,  from  27 
to  26.  The  supporters  of  the  bill  to  pass  it  were 
required,  under  the  Plehn  plan,  to  have  54  Assembly- 
men actually  on  hand  and  voting  for  it.  To  defeat  the 
bill,  its  opponents  needed  to  have  only  26  Assembly- 
men vote  "no"  or  fail  to  vote. 

The  struggle  between  the  two  groups  shifted  to  the 
Assembly. 

so  The  vote  by  which  the  King  Bill  passed  the  Senate  was  as 
follows : 

For  the  King  bill:  Senators  Allen,  Anderson,  Boggs,  Burnett, 
Canepa,  Carr,  F.  M.  Carr,  W.  J.  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Dennett 
Duncan,  Eden,  Flaherty,  Godsil,  Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin, 
Johnson,  Jones,  King,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon, 
Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey,  Slater — 30. 

Against  the  King  bill:  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Gates,  Hart,  Lyon, 
Purkitt,  Rominger,  Sample,  Shearer,  and  Yonkin — 10.  Chamberlin 
was  against  the  bill,  but  voted  with  the  majority  to  give  notice 
that  he  would  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  King  bill 
had  been  passed.  Thei  actual  Senate  vote  on  the  King  bill  was 
therefore  29  for  to  11  against. 


CHAPTER  V. 
KING  BILL  DEFEATED  IN  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

The  King  bill  having  passed  the  Senate,  the  "Bil- 
lion Dollar  Lobby"  flocked  over  to  the  Assembly 
where  a  battle  royal  was  on  between  the  opposing 
forces. 

The  lobby  redoubled  its  activities.  Letters  and 
telegrams  from  chambers  of  commerce,  banks,  "kept" 
reform  organizations,  etc.,  were  poured  in  upon  the 
Assemblymen.  To  meet  this  in  some  measure,  Gov- 
ernor Stephens  appealed  to  the  plain  people  to  make 
their  position  known  and  their  influence  felt. 

"The  battle  is  not  yet  won,"  said  the  Governor, 
after  the  bill  had  passed  the  Senate,  "the  lobbies  will 
now  concentrate  on  the  Assembly.  I  urge  every  citi- 
zen interested  in  good  government  to  write  his  or  her 
Assemblyman  immediately  to  safeguard  the  rights  of 
the  people.  I  have  full  confidence  in  the  members 
of  the  Assembly;  but  they  are  deserving,  in  this  gruell- 
ing contest,  of  all  the  moral  benefit  of  a  unanimously 
and  clearly  expressed  public  opinion."31 

si  Governor  Stephens'  statement  to  the  public  was  in  full  as 
follows:  "The  corporation  lobbies,  moving  in  massed  attack,  have 
failed  to  defeat  the  just  operation  of  our  taxing  system.  The 
people  of  California  have  reason  to  rejoice  that  our  State  Senate 
has  withstood  this  tremendous  power  and  influence  of  the  special 
interests.  The  fight  has  been  bitter  and  gruelling,  but  we  are 
ready  to  go  forward  with  equal  vigor  and  resolution  in  the  contest 
that  now  comes  up  to  the  Assembly.  I  appeal  to  the  people  of 
California  to  communicate  at  once  with  their  representatives  in  the 
Assembly  not  to  yield  to  this  gigantic  corporation  lobby,  the  like 
and  strength  of  which  has  never  before  been  seen  in  Sacramento. 
The  time  is  very  short  and  all  appeals  in'  behalf  of  the  people's 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  65 

The  Governor,  however,  had  no  well  organized, 
financed-at-the-public's  expense  "reform"  organizations 
to  proceed  systematically  to  deluge  the  legislators  with 
telegrams,  no  banks  to  detail  assistants  for  that  pur- 
pose, no  chambers  of  commerce  to  urge  an  influential 
membership  to  address  Senators  and  Assemblymen.32 

interest  should  be  sent  by  telegraph.  In  this  triumph  of  the 
people,  we  must  not  forget  the  aid  given  by  the  newspaper 
correspondents  who  have  faithfully  described  the  situation  and 
helped  greatly  to  make  the  victory  possible.  The  battle  is  not  yet 
won.  The  lobbies  will  now  concentrate  on  the  Assembly.  I  urge 
every  citizen  interested  in  good  government  to  wire  his  or  her 
Assemblyman  immediately  to  safeguard  the  rights  of  the  people. 
I  have  full  confidence  in  the  members  of  the  Assembly;  but  they 
are  deserving,  in  this  gruelling  contest,  to  all  the  moral  benefit 
of  a  unanimously  and  clearly  expressed  public  opinion." 

32  The  following  are  fair  samples  of  the  telegrams  received 
from  banks  and  chambers  of  commerce: 

From  the  Los  Angeles  Clearing  House  Association,  by  A.  J. 
Walters,  president:  "Desire  to  call  your  attention  to  fact  that 
hydro-electric  power  and  natural  gas  companies,  telephone  com- 
panies and  other  public  utilities  very  short  of  requirements  for 
business  and  will  be  obliged  to  go  to  public  to  sell  securities  in 
large  amounts.  Increased  taxation  makes  this  program  much 
more  difficult  and  will  retard  business  in  State  as  well  as  affect 
adversely  prosperity  of  property  owners  and  laboring  men.  Suggest 
your  careful  consideration  before  passing  taxation  bill." 

From  the  Los  Angeles  Chamber  of  Commerce:  "Respectfully 
urge  opposition  increase  tax  public  utilities,  and  substitution 
therefor  proper  license  operation  auto  busses  and  trucks,  tax  one 
cent  gallon  on  gasoline,  and  necessary  modifications  present  license 
fees  motor-driven  vehicles." 

From  the  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  National  Bank  (Los 
Angeles),  by  J,  A.  Graves,  president:  "Appeal  of  Governor 
Stephens  in  support  of  tax  measure  on  ground  of  corporate  in- 
fluence evades  real  issue.  The  entire  population  of  California 
affected,  taxes  in  the  end  coming  out  of  it.  No  need  of  these 
tremendous  appropriations  shown.  No  attempt  at  economy  is 
made.  State  officials  are  trying  to  force  tax  measure  through  in 
defiance  of  will  of  the  people  and  against  conclusion  of  Professor 
Plehn  and  others  who  have  studied  the  question.  Exception  of 
electric  roads  illegal  and  advanced  to  obscure  the  issue  and  lessen 
opposition  to  the  measure.  Southern  California  alone  will  have  to 
pay  electric  roads  half  million  additional  annually  if  measure 
passes.  City  of  Los  Angeles  will  lose  $100,000  annual  revenue  as 
Matthews,  counsel,  and  Mulholland,  engineer,  can  certify.  Adminis- 
tration using  threats  to  cut  off  appropriations  to  force  passage  of 
bill.  The  people  would  welcome  such  a  cause  as  it  would  rid  them 
of  some  of  the  tax  eaters.  We  urge  you  to  do  your  utmost  to 
defeat  the  bill  and  beg  of  you  to  fight  for  retrenchment  and 
economy  of  expenditures,  which  have  become  a  scandal  and 
disgrace  to  the  State,  and  in  the  end  if  persisted  in  will  bury  all 
connected  therewith  in  political  oblivion  by  a  majority  even  larger 
than  that  cast  against  Cox  in  this  State  last  November." 


66  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

And  the  plain  people  are  too  busy  making  a  living  to 
organize  for  their  own  protection  against  extortion. 
The  legislators  received  comparatively  few  communi- 
cations from  them.  It  is  true  that  a  number  of  farm- 
ers' organizations  sent  telegrams  urging  that  the  King 
bill  be  passed,  as  did  a  number  of  public-spirited  citi- 
zens. Several  public  service  corporations,  recognizing 
the  injustice  of  the  proposed  tax  shift  and  sensing  the 
injury  of  it. to  the  corporations  themselves33  took  simi- 
lar action.  But  such  communications  were  the  ex- 
ception. Probably  nineteen  out  of  twenty  of  the  tele- 
grams received  urged  that  the  King  bill  be  defeated. 
Unquestionably,  many  of  the  inspired  telegrams  were 
paid  for  by  the  public  service  corporations,  the  cost 
of  them  eventually  to  be  charged  up  as  "operating 
expenses,"  and  later  to  be  collected  from  the  public 
in  public  utility  rates.  The  corporation  agents  had 
much  to  say  about  tax-eaters  during  the  period,  not 
seemingly  sensing  the  fact  that  they  themselves  fell 
readily  within  the  definition  of  utility-rate  eaters. 

By  far  the  most  persistent  of  the  organizations 
lined  up  on  the  side  of  the  corporations  was  the  Better 
America  Federation. 

33  Senator  King,  author  of  the  King-  bill,  received  the  following 
letter  from  the  Southwestern  Home  Telephone  .Company,  toy 
Charles  A.  Rolfe,  president:  "I  congratulate  you  on  the  outcome 
of  your  bill  proportioning  the  tax  of  the  Public  Utilities.  I  have 
made  a  study  of  the  expenses  of  private  and  public  institutions  and 
in  the  increases  thereof  in  the  last  few  years  and  I  do  not  see  how 
the  State  can  escape  the  increased  expenses  without  going  back- 
wards. The  trend  of  the  times  is  for  better  things  and  more  of 
them,  including  improvements  and  reforms.  In  conclusion,  I  do 
not  see  how  anyone  could  dispute  the  action  of  your  committee  in 
reporting  an  increase  of  one-third  in  the  Public  Utilities  tax.  It 
is  perfectly  just  and  proper  and  in  line  with  the  trend  of  affairs 
at  present  on  account  of  our  higher  standards  of  development.  I 
do  not  expect  to  see  much  decrease  in  the  cost  of  operating  utilities 
and  governments  unless  we  intend  to  go  back  to  the  days  of 
camp-fires  and  tallow  candles." 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  67 

The  Better  America  Federation,  under  various 
aliases  and  a  camouflage  of  patriotism,  had  made 
rather  unsavory  record,34  but  it  was  not  until  the  King 
bill  had  passed  the  Senate  that  the  Federation  took 
its  stand  squarely  on  the  side  of  the  corporations. 

Just  before  the  King  bill  came  to  vote  in  the  As- 
sembly, each  of  the  seventy-nine  Assemblymen  received 
a  telegram 35  from  the  Federation,  signed  by  its  State 
President,  H.  M.  Haldeman,  urging,  if  action  on  the 
King  bill  could  not  be  postponed  until  the  second  part 
of  the  session,  that  it  be  defeated. 

The  state  federation  apparently  "pulled  wires"  to 
set  in  motion  local  machinery  for  telegrams  to  be 
sent  by  the  organization's  local  units,  for  telegrams, 
worded  similarly  to  that  signed  by  the  State  organiza- 


34  The  State  Board  of  Education  had  found  it  necessary  to  have 
literature  issued  by  the  Better  America  Federation  excluded  from 
the  public  schools.     The  Federation  had  earned  just  condemnation 
because    of    an    unwarranted    attack    upon    the    Young:    Women's 
Christian  Association.    During  the  1920  State  campaign  the  Federa- 
tion supported  the  so-called  Anti-Initiative  Amendment  to  the  State 
Constitution,  the  effect  of  which  would  have  been  limitation  of  the 
use    of    the    Initiative.      On    this    issue,    as    an    indication    of    the 
Federation's    standing,    it   was    defeated    in    every    county    of    the 
State  except  Alpine. 

35  The  Better  America  Federation  telegram  was  in  full  as  fol- 
lows:    "Our  board  of  directors,  at  meeting  held  this  week,  unani- 
mously passed  resolution  requesting  Los  Angeles  County  members 
of  Legislature  to  use  their  influence  to  have  final  consideration  of 
tax  bill  put  over  until  reconvening  of  session.    The  adoption  of  this 
tax  bill   is  a  matter  of  very  great   importance   to   California   and 
should    not    be    crowded    through    as    an    emergency   measure,    but 
should  be  given   thorough   and  careful  consideration.     It  is   to   be 
hoped    that    a   thorough    investigation    of    State    expenditures    will 
show   where   considerable   savings   can    be   affected   in   addition   to 
the  savings   looked  for  from  the  elimination  and  consolidation  of 
State  commissions.     We  are   of   the  opinion   that  the   Legislature 
should  use  every  endeavor  to  find  ways  of  reducing  the  amount  of 
money  necessary  to  run  the  State  rather  than  hurriedly  crowding 
through  an  increase  in  taxation.     If  action  on  this  bill  cannot  be 
postponed   until   next  session,    we  heartily  recommend   that   it   be 
killed." 


68  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

tion,  began  to  come  from  all  parts  of  the  State.36 
These  local  telegrams,  however,  generally  lacked  the 
ring  of  assurance  which  marked  that  sent  by  State 
President  Haldeman.  They  indicated  that  the  men 
sending  them  were  at  least  in  some  doubt  as  to  the 
correctness  of  their  position.  The  Federation's  efforts, 
however,  unquestionably  had  its  effect  on  certain  of 
the  Assemblymen  who  had  been  counted  upon  to  vote 
for  the  King  bill,  but  who,  when  the  test  came,  voted 
against  it.8T 

After  their  defeat  in  the  Senate,  the  corporation 
group  followed  two  lines  of  attack. 

To  appreciate  the  utter  insincerity  of  their  posi- 
tion, the  fact  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  purpose 
of  the  King  bill  was  to  equalize  taxes  between  the 
two  groups  of  taxpayers,  the  corporations,  banks,  in- 
surance companies,  etc.,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
plain  citizen  on  the  other.  The  question  was  not 
whether  the  State  had  sufficient  revenues  for  its  main- 


36  The  Santa  Clara  County  Unit  of  the  Federation,  for  exam- 
ple, was  responsible  for  the  following:  "The  attention  and  inter- 
est of  the  citizens  of  Santa  Clara  County  are  directed  today  to 
the  discussions  in  the  Assembly  bearing  on  proposed  tax  meas- 
ures. We  wish  to  advise  you  of  our  continued  confidence  and 
support  in  your  efforts  to  secure  the  passage  of  such  a  tax 
measure  as  will  provide  the  greatest  benefit  to  our  county  and  our 
State.  We  strongly  favor  a  rigid  economy  program  compatible 
with  present  commercial  conditions  and  we  particularly  urge  at 
this  time  that  you  defer  vote  on,  proposed  increased  public  utilities 
tax  until  after  mid-session  recess,  thus  allowing  time  to  determine 
actual  extent  of  economy  program  and  opportunity  for  more 
mature  deliberation  concerning  revenue  sources." 

87  Twelve  Assemblymen,  who  had  been  popularly  regarded  as 
standing  for  the  King  bill,  at  the  test  voted  against  it.  They 
were:  Joseph  F.  Burns,  Thomas  A.  Mitchell  and  George  W. 
Warren,  of  San  Francisco;  Willard  R.  Badham,  Los  Angeles; 
William  O.  Hart,  Orange;  James  N.  Long,  Richmond;  Daniel 
McCloskey,  Hollister;  Ralph  McGee,  Sutter  Creek;  Robert  B.  Mc- 
Pherson,  Vallejo;  Frank  F.  Merriam,  Long  Beach;  H.  B.  Ream, 
Sisson;  John  R.  White,  Glendale. 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  69 

tenance,  but  whether  the  corporations  were  paying 
their  proportionate  share  of  taxes. 

The  State's  fiscal  agents  had  demonstrated  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Revenue  and  Taxation  Committees 
of  Senate  and  Assembly  that  the  corporations  were 
not  paying  their  proportionate  share.  The  committees 
on  this  showing  had  prepared  the  King  bill  to  the 
end  that  the  rates  between  the  two  groups  might  be 
placed  on  as  equitable  a  basis  as  possible  under  the 
Plehn  system. 

The  lines  of  attack  which  the  lobby,  certain  cham- 
bers of  commerce,  "kept"  civic  bodies  and  similar  ad- 
juncts of  corporation  domination,  advanced  against  the 
King  bill,  were: 

(1)  That  it  was  not  necessary  to  increase  the 
State's  revenues;  that  economies  in  State  management 
could  be  instituted  under  which  savings  of  some 
$8,000,000  a  year  could  be  maintained. 

The  principal  organization  which  advanced  this 
argument  was  the  so-called  Taxpayers'  Association  of 
California.  Mr.  Seavey  of  the  State  Board  of  Con- 
trol promptly  exposed  the  Association38  as  originated 
by  George  C.  Tunell,  tax  agent  of  the  Santa  Fe  Rail- 
road; directed  by  Herbert  W.  Clark  of  the  corpora- 
tion lobby,  with  Paul  Shoup,  suave  and  ingratiating, 
the  master  mind  back  of  the  whole  concern,  and  the 
"Better  America  Federation"  as  assistant.  Further- 
more, any  person  familiar  with  the  State's  finances 
knows  that  no  such  saving  as  the  Tunell-Clark-Shoup 
organization  stated  can  be  made.  Nevertheless,  the 

38  See  footnote  22. 


70  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

chambers  of  commerce,  banks,  Better  America  Fed- 
eration, etc.,  continued  to  contend,  even  after  the  ex- 
posure of  the  Association,  that  such  savings  were 
possible.39 

(2)  The  second  line  of  attack,  was  to  prevent  the 
bill's  passage  during  the  first  part  of  the  legislative 
session.  This  position  was  taken  when  the  lobby  dis- 
covered soon  after  the  bill's  passage  in  the  Senate, 
that  they  did  not  at  that  time  have  the  necessary  26 
votes  to  defeat  it  in  the  Assembly.  During  the  period 
following  the  measure's  passage  in  the  Senate,  and  the 
vote  upon  it  in  the  Assembly,  the  bulk  of  the  lobby's 
work  was  to  have  action  put  over  until  the  second 
part  of  the  session. 

There  is  very  good  reason  to  question  the  lobby's 
good  faith  here.  The  Attorney-General  had  ruled  from 
the  time  the  Legislature  was  first  called  upon  in  1913 
to  increase  the  corporation's  rates,  that  the  bill  so  in- 
creasing them  must  become  law  by  the  first  Monday 
in  March  to  satisfy  all  question  of  whether  or  not 
such  rates  are  to  be  effective  for  the  current  year. 
In  the  brief  period  between  the  date  of  reconvening 
of  the  Legislature  after  the  recess  and  the  first  Monday 
in  March,  the  passage  of  an  act  of  the  King  bill's  im- 
portance would  be  most  difficult.  Here,  unquestion- 
ably, is  to  be  found  the  reason  for  the  lobby's  in- 
sistence for  delay. 

In  this,  once  again,  chambers  of  commerce,  banks 
and  "kept"  civic  bodies  were  of  the  greatest  assist- 
ance to  the  lobby.  The  telegrams  sent  by  such  es- 

39  See  footnotes  32,  35  and  36. 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  71 

tablishments  to  the  Assemblymen  almost  in  every  in- 
stance asked  that  no  action  be  taken40  until  the  second 
part  of  the  session. 

That  strong  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon 
various  members  of  the  Assembly  to  vote  against  the 
King  bill  is  notorious. 

That  Assemblyman  C.  C.  Spaulding  of  Santa  Clara 
County  received  an  offer  of  a  Federal  position  to 
change  his  support  to  opposition  is  well  established. 
Of  course,  the  respectable  gentlemen  concerned  make 
denial  or  explanation,  but  telegrams  were  received  by 
Mr.  Spaulding  which  could  be  interpreted  in  but  one 
way.  The  State  Board  of  Directors  of  American 
Farmers  called  upon  the  Grand  Jury  of  Santa  Clara 
County  to  probe  the  scandal,  but,  as  is  usual  in  such 
cases,  nothing  came  of  it. 

The  Sacramento  Bee  published  a  charge  that  As- 
semblyman George  W.  Warren,  an  employee  of  the 
Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  who  shifted  from 
support  of  the  bill  to  opposition,  had  claimed  he 
changed  his  attitude  under  pressure  from  John  A. 
Britton,  general  manager  of  the  corporation  which 
employs  Warren.  Warren,  in  a  letter  to  The  Bee, 
denied  that  Mr.  Britton  had  brought  such  pressure  to 
bear  upon  him.  The  Bee  printed  Mr.  Warren's  letter 
of  denial,  with  an  editorial  statement  that  the  charge 
involving  Britton  had  been  based  on  statements  made 
by  Warren,  and  called  upon  the  Assembly  to  make 
full  investigation.41 

40  See  footnotes  32,  35  and  36. 

41  The  Bee's  comment  on  the  Warren  incident  was:    "The  Bee's 
story  was  based  upon  statements  made  by  Assemblyman  George  W. 


72  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

No  investigation  followed. 

Mr.  Britton  is  a  Regent  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia. The  Warren-Britton  incident  was  not  the 
least  of  the  unpleasant  features  of  the  opposition 
which  finally  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  this  measure. 

Although  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation  had  sat  with  the  Senate  Committee  when 
the  tax  bill  was  under  consideration,  the  opposition 
insisted  upon  a  complete  hearing  before  this  com- 
mittee. 

First  the  attempt  was  made  to  amend  the  bill  to 
reduce  the  tax  rates  for  banks,  but  this  failed,  as  did 
the  next  move  to  have  action  on  the  bill  itself  con- 
tinued until  after  the  legislative  recess.  The  com- 
mittee finally  sent  the  bill  back  to  the  Assembly  with 
recommendation  that  it  be  passed. 

By  this  time,  the  opposition  had  degenerated  into 
a  fight  for  delay.  The  lobby,  with  its  wide-flung  lines 
of  influence,  had  made  some  inroads  upon  the  bill's 
support.  Starting  with  an  estimated  61  votes  for  its 
passage,  7  more  than  the  54  required,  by  the  time 
the  bill  got  to  the  Assembly  floor,  the  estimated  scant 

Warren  himself  here  in  Sacramento.  The  source  of  that  informa- 
tion, which  is  reliable,  without  evasion  or  qualification,  stated  and 
reiterates  that  George  W.  Warren  himself  said  that  John  A.  Britton 
threatened  him  with  discharge  from  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric 
Company  if  he  dared  vote  for  the  corporation  tax  measure.  The 
charge  is  serious,  both  against  John  A.  Britton  and  Assemblyman 
George  W.  Warren.  Assemblyman  George  W.  Warren  should  de- 
mand a  legislative  investigation,  or  if  he  fail  to  do  so,  the  Assembly 
itself,  In  protection  of  its  own  integrity,  should  force  such  an  in- 
vestigation. The  Assembly  has  full  power  to  subpoena  the  editor 
of  this  paper  and  all  its  reporters  to  disclose  the  information  they 
have  that  an  Assemblyman  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty  was  in- 
timidated by  the  head  of  a  public  service  corporation.  But  no 
subpoena  will  be  needed.  The  Bee  is  ready  and  willing  to  disclose 
Its  sources  of  information  whenever  asked  by  the  Assembly  or  by 
any  investigating  committee  appointed  by  it,  which  leaves  it  squarely 
up  to  Assemblyman  George  W.  Warren  and  the  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  California." 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  73 

margin  of  7  had  been  reduced  by  three  or  four.  De- 
lay was  recognized  as  dangerous.  But  an  attempt  by 
the  majority  to  have  the  bill  put  upon  immediate 
passage  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  48  for  it  to  31 
against,  54  being  required  for  adoption  of  the  reso- 
lution calling  for  immediate  action. 

This  was  the  first  test  vote  on  the  King  bill  in 
the  Assembly.42  It  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  bill's 
supporters.  The  effect  of  the  defeat  was  to  delay  the 
final  vote  on  the  bill  for  two  days. 

During  the  next  twenty-four  hours  the  hammer- 
ing to  break  down  support  of  the  bill  evidently  had 
results.  The  opposition  apparently  felt  it  was  in  con- 
trol of  the  26  votes  necessary  to  defeat  the  measure. 
At  any  rate,  the  fight  of  the  day  before  was  fought 
over  again  with  the  sides  changed,  the  bill's  opponents 
contending  for  immediate  action,  and  the  bill's  sup- 
porters fighting  for  delay.  The  move  of  the  opposi- 
tion to  force  action  failed,  although  thirty-five  mem- 
bers voted  in  the  affirmative. 

When  the  debate  on  the  King  bill  opened  in  the 
Assembly  the  scant  one-third  of  the  numbers  arrayed 

42  The  vote  by  which  this  resolution  was  defeated  was  as  follows : 
For  the  resolution  and  for  the  supporters  of  the  King  bill: 
Anderson,  Badham,  Bernard,  Broughton,  Christian,  Clearly,  Col- 
burn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cummings,  Fellom,  >Fulwider,  Hawes, 
Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hughes,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L., 
Jones,  I.,  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.,  Lewis,  Manning,  Mather,  McDowell, 
McGee,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Mitchell,  Morrison,  Parker,  Parkinson, 
Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Ream,  Roberts,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith, 
Spalding,  Webster,  West,  White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  Wright, 
T.  M.— 48. 

Against  the  resolution  and  against  the  supporters  of  the  King 
bill:  Badaracco,  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks, 
Burns,  Cleveland,  Eksward,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart,  Heck, 
Hume,  Hurley,  Lee,  G.  W.,  Long,  Loucks,  Lyons,  McCloskey,  Mc- 
Pherson,  Morris,  Pedrotti,  Rosenshine,  Spence,  Stevens,  Warren, 
Weber,  Wendering.— 31. 


74  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

against  it  made  a  queer  medley.  There  were  a  hand- 
ful of  labor  union  members  from  San  Francisco  work- 
ing side  by  side  with  the  Better  America  Federation 
group  from  Los  Angeles.  The  "wet"  leader  Bada- 
racco  of  San  Francisco's  notorious  Thirty-third  As- 
sembly district,  on  this  issue,  joined  hands  with  the 
"dry"  Assemblyman  Brooks  of  Alameda.  Labor 
Leader  Hurley  of  Alameda  county  and  Assemblyman 
Graves  of  Los  Angeles,  whose  labor  record  of  the 
1919  session  was  made  subject  of  scathing  criticism 
by  the  State  Federation  of  Labor,  were  one  on  the 
taxation  issue.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  were  not 
many  in  numbers,  but  they  were  of  a  wide  range  of 
political,  industrial,  social,  pathological  and  moral 
types. 

Before  the  vote  was  taken,  Assemblyman  Merriam 
of  Long  Beach,  who  had  been  counted  for  the  bill, 
asked  that  consideration  of  it  go  over  until  after  the 
constitutional  recess.  When  this  was  denied,  Mer- 
riam made  a  statement  to  the  Assembly. 

"I  am  myself  satisfied  with  the  King  bill,"  he 
said,  "but  I  am  in  favor  of  its  going  over  until  after 
the  recess,  because  my  people  favor  that  action.  I 
believe  that  my  people,  if  they  understood  this  bill 
provides  for  equalization  of  taxes,  and  is  not  to  in- 
crease the  tax  burden  as  has  apparently  been  repre- 
sented to  them,  would  want  me  to  vote  for  it.  But, 
yielding  to  their  wishes,  I  shall  vote  against  the  bill, 
and  then  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  it  is 
defeated,  asking  that  reconsideration  be  continued 
until  after  the  legislative  recess." 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  75 

Merriam's  stand  meant  the  defeat  of  the  bill.  The 
support  of  the  measure  had,  by  the  time  it  came  to 
vote,  been  reduced,  counting  Merriam  and  Badham 
with  its  supporters,  to  54,  leaving  25  members  against 
it.  The  54  votes  were  sufficient  to  pass  it.  Mer- 
riam's withdrawal  meant  an  affirmative  vote  of  only 
53,  one  less  than  the  54  required  for  its  passage.  But 
Badham,  who  had  been  counted  as  a  supporter,  voted 
with  Merriam.  This  reduced  the  bill's  support  to  52. 
Pettis,  for  the  bill,  changed  his  vote  from  "yes"  to  "no" 
to  move  its  reconsideration  on  the  next  legislative 
day,  which  made  the  official  vote  on  the  bill  51  to 
28.43  Twenty-seven  Assemblymen  had  defeated  52 
Assemblymen  and  29  of  the  40  Senators. 

The  measure,  on  Pettis'  motion,  came  up  for  final 
vote  the  following  legislative  day.  Hurley,  who  had 
shown  himself  by  far  the  ablest  of  the  opposition, 
moved  that  the  bill  be  re- referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation  to  report  back  at  the  earliest 
possible  date  after  the  constitutional  recess.  In  this, 
Hurley  was  supported  by  Weber,  Long,  Merriam  and 
Hume. 

"My   feeling   is,"    said    Hume,    in    speaking   to   the 

43  The  vote  by  which  the  King  bill  was  defeated  in  the  Assem- 
bly was: 

For  the  King  bill:  Anderson,  Bernard,  Broughton,  Burns,  Chris- 
tian, Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cummings, 
Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hawes,  Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hughes, 
Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L.,  Jones,  I.,  Kline,  Lee,  G.  W., 
Lee,  I.  A.,  Lewis,  Manning,  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen,  McPherson, 
Morrison,  Parker,  Parkinson,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Rosen- 
shine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Webster,  Wendering, 
West,  White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  Wright,  T.  M. — 51. 

Against  the  King  bill:  Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal,  Ben- 
ton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart.  Heck. 
Hurley,  Long,  Loucks,  Lyons,  McCloskey,  McGee,  Merriam,  Mitchell, 
Morris,  Pedrotti,  Pettis,  Ream,  Stevens,  Warren,  Weber. — 28.  Pettis 
voted  against  bill  to  move  for  reconsideration. 


76  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

support  of  Hurley's  motion,  "that  this  bill  will  have 
more  friends  after  the  constitutional  recess  than  today. 
I  am  sure  it  will  go  through  after  the  constitutional 
recess  with  very  few  changes." 

"I  am  not  opposed  to  this  bill  in  any  particular," 
said  Merriam,  "but  I  do  ask  that  it  go  over  until 
after  the  constitutional  recess." 

Assemblymen  of  the  type  of  Coombs,  Crittenden, 
Windrem,  Heisinger,  Cleary  and  Mather,  strongly 
urged  immediate  action,  pointing  out  the  dangers  of 
delay. 

"The  time  to  do  a  thing,"  said  Assemblyman 
Mather,  "is  when  it  should  be  done.  I  am  convinced 
that  this  is  the  time  to  pass  this  bill.  I  believe  it  to 
be  an  equitable  measure.  It  comes  from  men  who 
are  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts.  I  believe  in  the 
judgment  of  those  men.  And  in  taking  the  position 
that  I  do,  I  have  kept  in  mind  that  this  is  not  a  bill 
based  on  the  raising  of  revenue,  but  for  the  purpose 
of  equalizing  the  tax  burden." 

Heisinger,  apparently  knowing  the  ways  of  the 
corporations,  warned  his  colleagues  of  the  misrepre- 
sentation of  the  issue  that  could  be  looked  for  should 
passage  of  the  bill  be  postponed  until  after  the  con- 
stitutional recess. 

"If  action  on  the  bill  is  delayed  until  after  the 
recess,"  said  Heisinger,  "the  newspapers  will  be  filled 
with  advertisements  paid  for  by  the  public  service 
corporations  to  mislead  the  public.  The  corporations 
know  that  if  they  can  get  the  bill  put  off,  they  can, 
by  misrepresenting  advertising,  work  up  public  opin- 
ion against  it.  There  is  no  necessity  for  delay." 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  77 

Speaker  Henry  Wright,  speaking  from  the  floor, 
warned  his  colleagues  that  delay  endangered  the  pass- 
age of  the  bill. 

"I  don't  need  thirty  days  in  which  to  decide  whether 
or  not  I  shall  do  justice  by  the  people  of  California," 
he  told  them.  "I  am  going  to  do  my  duty  now.  To 
ask  for  delay  is  only  another  way  of  asking  for  de- 
feat of  this  bill." 

Wright  read  a  telegram  from  a  man  whom  he  de- 
scribed as  "one  of  the  most  important  bankers  of  Los 
Angeles."  This  banker  asked  Wright  to  vote  against 
the  King  bill  on  the  ground  that  "if  it  is  passed  it 
will  be  extremely  difficult  to  pass  the  burden  of  the 
increased  taxes  on  to  the  people." 

"I  should  like  to  see  a  law  enacted,"  commented 
Wright,  "that  would  make  it  impossible  for  corpora- 
tions to  pass  their  share  of  taxes  on  to  the  people.'' 

Mr.  Wright  then  proceeded  to  make  it  very  clear 
that  it  was  not  a  question  whether  the  state  needed 
$1,000,000  or  $40,000,000.  The  question  was  simply 
whether  or  not  there  should  be  equitable  adjustment 
of  the  tax  burden.  The  Legislature,  Speaker  Wright 
pointed  out,  had  a  duty  to  perform,  irrespective  of 
whether  the  state  faced  a  deficit  or  a  surplus. 

"The  people  have  elected  to  the  State  Board  of 
Equalization,"  he  continued,  "men  who  have  been 
working  on  this  problem,  not  for  days  or  months,  but 
for  years.  They,  in  conjunction  with  the  Board  of 
Control,  have  placed  the  facts  before  us.  It  is  our 
duty  to  act  on  those  facts." 

By  way  of  contrast,  Speaker  Wright  read  from  a 


78  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

letter  received  from  a  man  he  described  as  a  large 
property  owner  of  Los  Angeles,4*  in  which  the  writer 
urged  that  the  King  bill  be  passed,  holding  that  the 
taxes  of  the  plain  citizen  had  been  increased  more  than 
33  1/3  per  cent.  This  property  owner  showed  that  as 
most  of  his  property  consisted  of  stocks  in  corpora- 
tions, he  would  be  benefited  personally  if  the  King 
bill  were  defeated,  but  expressed  the  belief  that  the 
just  thing  should  be  done  and  stated  his  willingness 
as  a  stockholder  in  many  corporations,  "to  pay  my 
share  of  the  increased  taxation  rather  than  have  an 
increased  burden  put  upon  the  individual." 

"Such,"  Mr.  Wright  contended,  "is  the  attitude 
of  citizens  who  stand  for  square  dealing,  whether  they 
are  stockholders  in  corporations,  or  plain  citizens. 
There  is  no  intention  of  'cinching'  the  corporations, 
but,"  the  Speaker  insisted,  "there  is  determined  pur- 


44  The  letter  was  from  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes  of  Ix»s  Angeles, 
and  was  in  full  as  follows:  "I  take  the  liberty  of  asking  you  to 
do  all  you  can  in  support  of  the  bill  which  has  just  passed  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  30  to  10,  increasing  the  corporation  tax.  I 
think  this  bill  is  a  just  one,  for  the  reason  that  the  taxes  on 
property  owned  by  individuals  have  been  increased  more  than 
33%  per  cent.  As  an  illustration,  my  tax  bill  for  a  certain  piece 
of  property  in  1919-20  was  $1634.70.  This  year,  1920-21,  the  bill  is 
$2529.70,  showing  an  increase  of  more  than  50  per  cent.  It  would 
be  very  unjust  to  impose  an  ad  valorem  tax  upon  the  private  tax- 
payer whose  taxes  have  already  been  increased  approximately  50 
per  cent  in  the  past  year.  I  wish  to  say  to  you  that  personally, 
inasmuch  as  most  of  my  property  is  composed  of  stocks  in  cor- 
porations, I  would  be  benefited  by  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem 
tax;  but  despite  this  fact,  I  believe  that  the  just  thing  should  be 
done  and  I  am  willing,  as  a  stockholder  in  many  corporations,  to 
pay  my  share  of  the  increased  taxations  rather  than  to  have  an 
increased  burden  put  upon  the  individual.  Many  of  the  corpora- 
tions are  making  very  handsome  profits  on  their  investments,  a 
number  of  those  in  which  I  am  a  stockholder  pay  from  12  to  25 
per  cent,  and  the  great  majority  of  them  could  stand  this  increased 
burden  of  taxation  without  materially  affecting  their  dividends." 
"Likewise  I  hope  that  you  will  do  all  that  you  can  to  defeat  Assem- 
bly bills  230  and  231,  providing  for  indeterminate  franchises.  In 
my  opinion  these  bills  are  vicious  and  will  forever  prevent  the 
public  ownership  of  public  utilities." 


Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill  79 

pose  to  compel  the  corporations  to  carry  their  just 
share  of  the  burden  of  government. 

"Do  we  need  any  more  light  than  we  have?"  con- 
cluded the  Speaker.  "If  so,  from  whom?  Certainly 
not  from  the  corporations.  They  have  had  the  best 
of  it  all  along.  It  is  our  duty  to  pass  this  bill  now. 
I,  for  one,  do  not  need  thirty  days  to  enable  me  to 
decide  that  I  shall  do  my  duty." 

When  the  measure  was  finally  put  to  vote,  it  was 
defeated  with  49  Assemblymen  voting  for  the  pass- 
age, and  30  for  its  defeat.45 

Under  the  two-thirds  rule,  the  corporations  and 
banks  thus  defeated  an  overwhelming  majority  of  both 
houses  of  the  Legislature. 

Governor  Stephens,  when  the  defeat  of  the  King 
bill  was  accomplished,  issued  a  statement  in  which  he 
announced  that  the  corporations  had  prevented  the 
orderly  and  just  process  of  our  taxation  system,  and 
gave  assurance  that  the  fight  for  equitable  adjustment 
of  the  tax  burden  would  go  on  in  the  hope  that  a 
measure  similar  to  the  King  bill  could  be  passed  im- 
mediately on  the  reconvening  of  the  Legislature  fol- 
lowing the  legislative  recess. 

45  The  vote  by  which  the  King  bill  was  finally  defeated  in  the 
Assembly  was: 

For  the  King  bill:  Anderson,  Bernard,  Broughton,  Christian, 
Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cummlngs,  Eks- 
ward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hawes,  Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hughes, 
Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L.,  Jones,  I.,  Kline,  Lee,  G. 
W.,  Lee,  I.  A.,  Lewis,  Manning,  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen,  Mor- 
rison, Parker,  Parkinson,  Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts, 
Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Webster,  Wen- 
dering,  West,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  Wright,  T.  M.— 49. 

Against  the  King  bill:  Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal,  Ben- 
ton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Burns,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart, 
Heck,  Hurley,  Long,  Loucks,  Lyons,  McCloskey,  McGee,  McPher- 
son,  Merriam,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  Stevens,  Warren, 
Weber,  White.— 30. 


80  Assembly  Defeats  King  Bill 

To  back  up  the  stand  taken  by  Governor  Stephens, 
Senator  King,  before  the  Legislature  adjourned  for 
the  constitutional  recess,  introduced  a  second  revenue 
and  taxation  bill  which  was  practically  the  same  meas- 
ure that  had  been  defeated. 

The  campaign  in  and  out  of  the  Legislature  during 
the  constitutional  recess  and  for  the  first  ten  days  of 
the  second  part  of  the  session,  was,  on  the  part  of 
the  majority  of  the  Legislature,  to  pass  this  second 
King  bill  by  the  first  Monday  after  the  first  day  of 
March  which  happened  to  be  March  7.  The  part 
of  the  corporations  and  banks  was  to  defeat  it  if  they 
could;  and,  failing  to  defeat  it,  to  prevent  its  passage 
until  after  March  7. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
RECESS  ATTACKS  UPON  THE  KING  BILL. 

During  the  Legislative  Recess  the  corporations  re- 
sorted to  newspaper  advertising  to  discredit  the  King 
bill.  The  burden  of  these  advertisements  was  that  the 
1919  State  budget  had  provided  only  $47,850,153.66 
for  State  purposes  for  the  following  two-year  period; 
that  the  people  at  the  1920  election  had  by  popular 
vote  added  $18,000,000  to  State  expenditures  for  the 
two-year  period,  making  a  total  of  $65,850,153.66.  The 
1921  budget  for  the  fiscal  years  1921-22  and  1922-23 
reached  a  total  of  $81,387,692.85.  The  increase  over 
$65,850,153.66,  $15,807,538.05,  the  corporations  set 
forth  in  flaring  advertisements,  represented  avoid- 
able expenditures  and  extravagances.  Cut  this  nearly 
$16,000,000  from  the  budget,  they  contended,  and  there 
will  be  no  necessity  for  an  increase  in  the  taxes  of 
the  corporations,  or  for  levying  a  State  tax  on  the 
general  taxpayer.  In  many  of  the  advertisements,  the 
citizen  was  called  upon  to  "support  your  legislator  in 
demanding  that  the  State  live  within  its  income,  or 
show  why,"  with  the  added  truism  that  "The  power 
to  tax  is  the  power  to  destroy." 

To  bolster  their  contention  that  the  budget  was 
out  of  all  reason  large,  these  allied  interests  sought 
to  discredit  the  Budget  Board. 

"No  legislator,"  reads  one  of  their  advertisements 


82         Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill 

generally  published  throughout  the  state  a  few  days 
before  the  Legislature  began  the  work  of  the  second 
part  of  the  session,  "can  afford  to  vote  in  the  dark 
for  an  $81,000,000  budget.  The  Budget  Board  which 
proposes  the  enormous  extravagance  of  an  $81,000,000 
State  budget  for  the  next  two  years,  has  no  legal 
existence  and  no  legal  responsibility." 

"Remember,"  reads  another  advertisement  gener- 
ally published  throughout  the  State  during  the  third 
week  of  February,  "no  revenue  deficit  exists;  no  ad 
valorem  tax  is  necessary.  Ask  your  legislator  to  de- 
mand that  the  State  live  within  its  income." 

In  another  advertisement  printed  about  the  same 
time,  the  corporations  set  forth  that  "not  only  because 
the  extravagance  of  our  State  government  is  so 
startlingly  obvious  when  contrasted  with  that  of  other 
states,  but  because  in  times  like  these  there  is  a  na- 
tional need  for  economy,  is  it  the  duty  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  view  with  a  critical  eye  all  requests  for  bud- 
get increases.  The  responsibility  for  any  increase  is 
and  will  be  upon  the  Legislature  and  upon  no  one 
else.  If  proper  economies  are  practiced,  it  will  be 
found  that  our  present  revenues  will  pay  all  expenses 
and  no  ad  valorem  or  increased  corporation  tax  will 
be  necessary." 

The  question  involved  in  the  King  tax  bill  was  not 
of  economy,  but  of  equalization  of  the  tax  rates  as  paid 
by  the  utility  corporations,  banks  and  insurance  com- 
panies on  the  one  hand,  and  the  general  taxpayer  on 
the  other.  The  State's  fiscal  agents  had  presented 
data,  which  the  majority  of  the  Legislature  had  ac- 


Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill         83 

cepted  as  sufficient,  to  show  that  the  tax  rates  of  the 
public  utilities  were  approximately  one-third  less  than 
those  of  the  general  taxpayer.  The  King  bill,  based 
on  the  fiscal  agents'  showing,  proposed  equalization 
of  the  rates  as  between  the  two  groups.  Economy  in 
State  government  is  most  desirable,  and  most  popu- 
lar, and  very  commendable.  The  King  bill,  however, 
did  not  raise  the  question  of  economy  at  all,  but  of 
equalization.  Nor  was  the  budget  at  all  involved  in 
the  King  bill,  nor  had  the  committees  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation  anything  to  do  with  it,  the  budget  being 
handled  by  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the 
Assembly  and  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate. 
With  these  facts  in  mind,  the  following  from  one  of 
the  corporations'  anti-King-bill  advertisements  indi- 
cates the  character  of  campaign  which  the  associated 
interests,  intent  upon  preventing  any  increase  in  their 
tax  rates,  were  carrying  on: 

"The  real  issue  is  economy.  Endeavoring  to 
hide  the  extravagance  of  an  $81,000,000  budget, 
the  state  administration  has  raised  the  cloud  of 
equalization  to  befog  the  real  issue — economy. 
They  still  do  not  show  the  people  of  California 
the  necessity  for  $15,000,000  over  and  above  the 
1919  budget  and  all  additional  money  voted  by 
the  people  at  the  November  elections.  For  our 
legitimate  needs  our  present  revenue  is  still  ade- 
quate. No  ad  valorem  or  increased  corporation 
tax  is  necessary." 

Another     advertisement     contained    the     following: 

"No  legislator  can  afford  to  let  the  administra- 
tion railroad  through  this  $81,000,000  budget.  The 


84         Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill 

Tax  Investigation  and  Economy  League*6  has 
asked  the  Ways  and  Means  and  Finance  Com- 
mittees for  a  hearing  at  which  the  Budget  Board 
can  be  examined,  item  by  item,  as  to  their  extrav- 
agant proposals.  Every  legislator  should  insist 
upon  the  fullest  investigation  of  the  facts.  Press 
and  people  alike  demand  this.  With  even  normal 
economy,  no  increased  taxes  of  any  kind  should 
be  necessary." 


46  The  Tax  Investigation  and  Economy  League  was  closely 
identified  with  the  so-called  Taxpayers'  Association,  which,  un- 
der the  management  of  Mr.  Will  Fischer,  had  been  active  in 
California  for  several  years.  When  the  Taxpayers'  Association 
during  the  first  part  of,  the  session  published  an  advertisement  in 
opposition  to  the  King  tax  bill,  Mr.  Clyde  Seavey,  President  of 
the  State  Board  of  Control,  issued  a  statement  showing  that  the 
association  was  controlled  by  the  public  utility  companies  (see 
footnote  22).  After  the  publication  of  Mr.  Seavey's  statement, 
we  find  the  Tax  Investigation  and  Economy  League  practically 
taking  up  Mr.  Fischer's  work,  using  the  data  of  the  Taxpayers' 
Association  and  acting  in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Fischer.  Edward 
H.  Hamilton,  in  discussing  the  relationship  between  these  two 
organizations  stated  in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  of  February 
3rd  that:  "Having  been  smoked  out  of  the  'California  Tax- 
payers' Association',  the  lobby  of  the  corporations  now  calls  itself 
— 'The  Tax  Investigation  and  Economy  League'.  Herbert  W. 
Clark,  the  same  lobbyist,  who  was  president  of  the  Taxpayers' 
Association,  is  president  of  the  new  organization,  and  'Bill'  (W.  V.) 
Hill,  lobbyist  for  the  traction  interests,  is  secretary.  Why  not 
call  it  the  'Tax  Dodgers'  Association',  and  be  done  with  it?" 

When  Mr.  Fischer  was  testifying  before  the  Senate  at  the 
budget  hearing,  Senator  Allen  asked  him  to  name  the  corporations 
he  represented.  Mr.  Fischer  replied,  he  thought  there  were  about 
twelve  corporations  that  belonged  to  the  association,  naming  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  the  Santa  Fe  Railroad,  the  North- 
western Pacific  Railroad,  the  San  Joaquin  Gas  and  Light  Com- 
pany, the  Southern  California  Edison  Company,  and,  he  believed, 
the  Los  Angeles  Gas  and  Electric  Company.  The  Tax  Investiga- 
tion and  Economy  League  under  Mr.  Hill  and  Mr.  Clarke  was 
in  full  swing  within  a  week  after  the  Legislature  took  ita  consti- 
tutional recess.  Wigginton  Creed,  president  of  the  Pacific  Gas 
and  Electric  Company,  testified  at  the  Senate  budget  hearing 
that  the  Economy  League  was  "thrown  together  very  hurriedly 
for  the  particular  task  of  budget  investigation  during  the  past 
session  of  the  Legislature,"  and  that  it  consisted  mostly  of  the 
public  service  corporations  in  the  State  and  the  banks;  that  these 
institutions  financed  it.  Mr.  Creed  testified  he  was  a  member 
of  the  executive  committee.  President  Clark,  at  the  same  budget 
hearing,  testified  that  the  League  was  planned  immediately  upon 
the  beginning  of  the  legislative  recess.  Clark  admitted  that  public 
utility  corporations  were  primarily  interested  in  it  and  insisted 
that  this  was  generally  known. 


Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill         85 

A  full  page  advertisement  published  throughout  the 
State  about  the  middle  of  February,47  concluded  as 
follows : 

"The  two  fiscal  years  about  to  close  have  been 
years  of  the  highest  prices  known  in  this 
country.  That  condition  is  rapidly  changing. 
The  State  enters  the  next  two-year  period  with 
a  surplus  of  $2,000,000  from  current  revenues. 
Is  not  it  reasonable  to  suggest  that  it  should  en- 
deavor to  conduct  its  affairs  so  as  not  to  spend 
any  more  money  during  the  coming  two-year  pe- 
riod than  it  has  spent  during  the  two  years  just 
closing,  after  adding  the  $18,000,000  for  the 
schools,  interest  on  road  bonds  and  orphans'  aid 
voted  at  the  last  election? 

"Instead,  the  Budget  Board  at  Sacramento  has 
presented  to  the  Legislature  a  programme  calling 
for  the  expenditure  of  $16,000,000  more  during 
the  next  two-year  period  than  was  called  for  dur- 
ing the  two  years  ending  June  $oth  next,  plus  the 
$18,000,000  voted  by  the  people  last  November, 
this  making  a  total  of  $34,000,000  increase. 

"Every  business  interest  in  this  State,  whether 
operated  as  a  corporation  or  otherwise,  now  suf- 
fers under  the  tremendous  tax  burdens  imposed 
by  the  Federal  income  and  excess  profits  taxes 
and  the  State  and  local  taxes. 

"The  net  earnings  of  the  corporations,  if  we 
disregard  individual  exceptions  here  and  there, 
are  not  such  that  they  can  bear  the  proposed 
added  burdens  and  if  such  a  bill  passes,  the  pub- 
lic utilities  must  ask  for  further  increases  in  rates 
if  service  is  to  be  maintained. 

47  Throughout  this  chapter,  the  exact  dates  of  these  advertise- 
ments are  not  given  for  the  reason  that,  although  generally  pub- 
lished throughout  the  State,  they  did  not  appear  in  all  the  papers 
on  the  same  day. 


86         Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill 

"Shall  there  be  economy  to  meet  the  need  of  the 
times  in  our  state  affairs,  or  shall  the  burden  of 
increased  taxation  be  permitted  to  break  the  back 
of  industry?  No  matter  where  these  taxes  ulti- 
mately rest,  they  are  an  industrial  burden  thrust 
on  the  people  of  this  State  when  they  can  ill 
afford  it. 

"We  call  upon  the  Governor,  the  Legislature  of 
this  State,  and  upon  all  of  the  State  officers,  who 
have  a  voice  in  this  situation,  to  give  most  seri- 
ous and  earnest  consideration  to  this  question, 
with  full  thought  for  the  grave  responsibility  that 
rests  upon  them,  and  we  ask  the  people  of  this 
State  to  study  this  situation  thoroughly  from  the 
points  of  view  of  an  equitable  distribution  of  the 
taxation  burdens  and  of  the  economy  that  may 
be  rightly  exercised  in  State  affairs.  We  believe 
their  representatives  in  the  State  Legislature  will 
be  glad  to  be  advised  of  their  matured  judgments." 

This  particular  advertisement  was  signed  by  Mr. 
Wigginton  E.  Creed,  president  of  the  Pacific  Gas  and 
Electric  Company,  and  numerous  other  public  utility 
and  bank  executives.48  Most  of  the  other  advertise- 

48  The  signers  of  this  particular  advertisement  were:  Wigginton 
B.  Creed,  president,  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company;  A.  H. 
Payson,  assistant  to  the  president,  Santa  Fe  Railroad;  W.  R. 
Alberger,  vice-president  and  general  manager,  San  Francisco- 
Oakland  Terminal  Railways;  Jesse  B.  McCargar,  president,  Cali- 
fornia Bankers'  Association;  Paul  Shoup,  vice-president,  Southern 
Pacific  Company;  Mortimer  Fleishhacker,  president,  Anglo-Califor- 
nia Trust  Company;  Frank  B.  Anderson,  president,  Bank  of 
California;  B.  C.  Carroll,  general  agent,  Pacific  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Company;  John  A.  Britton,  vice-president  and  general 
manager,  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company;  William  Sproule, 
president,  Southern  Pacific  Company;  Herbert  W.  Clark,  counsel, 
San  Francisco-Oakland  Terminal  Railways;  Clarence  M.  Oddie, 
western  representative,  American  Short  Line  Railroad  Association; 
S.  M.  Haskins,  attorney,  Los  Angeles  Railway  Corporation;  Frank 
Karr,  chief  counsel,  Pacific  Electric  Railway  Company,  Los  Ange- 
les; R.  H.  Ballard,  vice-president,  Southern  California  Edison 
Company,  Los  Angeles;  Champ  S.  Vance,  vice-president,  Los  An- 
geles Gas  and  Electric  Corporation;  W.  H.  Wood,  vice-president, 
First  National  Bank,  Los  Angeles;  William  Clayton,  vice-president, 


Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill         87 

ments  were  signed  by  the  "Tax  Investigation  and 
Economy  League,  Herbert  W.  Clark,  president;  W. 
V.  Hill,  secretary."  This  League,  as  has  been  shown, 
was  organized  and  financed  by  corporation  executives, 
who  signed  the  Creed  advertisement.  Never  before, 
probably,  in  the  history  of  any  American  state,  had 
citizens  of  the  responsibility  of  the  gentlemen  who 
sponsored  those  advertisements,  made  such  sweeping 
charges  against  a  responsible  State  government.  Cer- 
tainly, never  before  had  such  a  publicity  campaign 
been  carried  on  to  present  charges  so  serious  to  the 
general  public. 

Before  acting  on  the  budget,  the  Senate,  taking 
into  consideration  the  responsibility  of  sponsors  of 
the  advertisements,  the  gravity  of  the  charges,  and  the 
general  demand  that  the  matter  be  investigated,  spent 
nearly  a  month  later  on  in  the  session  going  over  the 
budget  item  by  item.49  In  pursuance  of  this  work,  the 
Senate  had  before  it  State  officials,  fiscal  experts,  citi- 
zens who  were  thought  to  be  in  a  position  to  throw  light 
upon  the  situation,  and  attempted  to  secure  the  testi- 
mony and  assistance  of  the  responsible  corporation  ex- 
ecutives who  had,  over  their  signatures,  vouched  for 
the  accuracy  of  the  charges. 

But  to  the  astonishment  of  those  who  had  expected 

San  Diego  Electric  Railway;  A.  B.  Cass,  president,  Southern 
California  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  Los  Angeles;  W. 
L.  Blauer,  vice-president,  Bank  of  Italy,  San  Jose;  J.  H.  Miller, 
cashier,  First  National  Bank,  Healdsburg;  Thomas  B.  Connolly, 
cashier,  Stockton  Savings  and  Loan  Bank,  Stockton;  W.  A. 
Sutherland,  vice-president,  Fidelity  Trust  and  Savings  Bank, 
Fresno;  W.  E.  Benz,  president.  First  National  Bank,  Bakersfield; 
A.  H.  Smith,  president,  First  National  Bank,  Chico. 

49  A  full  account  of  this  investigation  will  be  found  in  the 
Chapter  on  the  Budget  Hearing.  See  page  122. 


88          Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill 

to  see  the  several  corporation  executives  hasten  to 
Sacramento  with  evidence  to  substantiate  and  justify 
their  serious  and  widely  advertised  accusations,  few 
of  them  appeared,  and  those  who  did  appear  testified 
in  effect  that  they  had  acted  on  hearsay  information, 
and  referred  the  Senate  to  Mr.  Will  Fischer  of  the 
Taxpayers'  Association,  and  to  Mr.  Max  Thelan, 
formerly  president  of  the  State  Railroad  Commission, 
who  had  been  hired  by  the  corporations  to  present  evi- 
dence of  extravagance  in  State  government  if  he 
could  find  any,  and  show  how  the  budget  could  be 
cut  down  approximately  $16,000,000  for  the  two 
years.50  The  majority  of  the  extravagance-charging 
corporation  executives  wrote  the  Senate  asking  to  be 
excused  from  attending  the  hearings.  Some  of  them 
very  frankly  stated,  over  their  signatures,  which  had 
been  so  lightly  used  in  their  advertising  campaign,  that 
they  were  not  in  a  position  to  back  up  their  charges.51 

so  See  Chapter  on  the  Budget  Hearing,   page  122. 

6i  Such  letters  will  be  found  in  the  Senate  Journal  for  March 
7-8-9.  The  following  are  typical: 

From  Prank  B.  Anderson,  President  of  the  Bank  of  California, 
N.  A.:  "I  have  no  figures  in  my  possession  showing  what  item 
or  items  can  be  eliminated  from  the  State  budget  without  impair- 
ing the  efficiency  of  the  State  government.  I  signed  an  appeal 
to  the  citizens  of  California  to  call  upon  the  representatives  of 
the  State  to  give  most  serious  consideration  to  the  question  of 
equitable  distribution  of  taxation  burdens  and  of  economy,  as  the 
present  economic  crisis  can  only  be  cured  through  rigid  economy 
and  exercise  of  common  sense  on  the  part  of  the  State  and  its 
citizens.  The  whole  subject  of  taxation,  so  far  as  the  banks  are 
concerned,  was  assigned  to  the  California  Bankers'  Association, 
which  was  created  to  handle  such  subjects.  We  have  absolute 
confidence  in  the  officers  of  the  association  and  accept  their 
findings.  I  ask  to  be;  excused  from  appearing,  as  I  can  not  add 
anything  of  value  to  the  discussion  as  a  result  of  a  personal 
study." 

From  Mortimer  Fleishhacker,  President  Anglo-California  Trust 
Co.:  "As  I  have  some  exceedingly  important  business  engagements 
in  San  Francisco  on  Tuesday  next,  I  will  appreciate  very  much  if  I 
may  be  excused  attending  the  Senate  hearing.  I  have  no  informa- 
tion to  add  to  that  already!  in  the  possession  of  the  Senate." 

From    Thomas    B.    Connolly,    Cashier    of    Stockton    Savings    and 


Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill         89 

The  job  of  moving  that  these  distinguished  gentle- 
men be  excused  from  testifying  devolved  on  Senator 
W.  J.  Carr.  There  was  a  ring  of  irony  in  Carr's 
voice,  as  he  went  through  the  formula — "Mr.  Presi- 
dent, in  view  of  this  communication,  I  move  that  Mr. 
So  and  So  be  excused  from  attendance  on  the  budget 
hearings." 

The  progressive  Senators  smiled  broadly  as  they 
voted  with  their  opposing  colleagues  to  excuse  the 
gentlemen  who  had  given  the  weight  of  their  names 
to  the  serious  charges  of  State  extravagance,  which 
had  been  published  throughout  the  State  as  an  argu- 
ment against  equalization  of  the  State's  taxes. 

When   the    legislators    convened,    however,    for   the 

Loan  Bank:  "I  acknowledge  receipt  of  subpoena  to  appear  before 
the  Senate  as  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  reference  to  the 
matter  of  taxation,  on  Wednesday,  March  9,  1921,  at  2  oclock 
p.  m.,  for  the  purpose,  as  stated,  'of  submitting  any  figures  in 
their  possession  showing  what  item  or  items  can  be  eliminated 
without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  the  State  government.'  In 
regard  to  the  above  quoted  requirement,  I  desire  to  say  that  I 
have  no  figures  in  my  possession,  or  do  I  expect  to  have  by  the 
date  mentioned,  or  at  any  other  time  for  that  matter,  any  figures 
showing  what  item  or  items  can  be  eliminated  from  the  budget, 
without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  the  State  government.  I 
desire,  further,  to  state  that  I  do  not  recall  of  having  made  any 
specific  charge  as  to  any  specific  item  or  items  being  unnecessary, 
or  that  they  could  be  eliminated  without  impairing  the  efficiency 
of  the  State  government,  and  I  am  now  and  will  be  on  the  date 
specified  unable  to  give  any  testimony  which  in  my1  opinion  would 
throw  any  light  whatsoever  on  the  subject,  or  be  of  benefit  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  If  I  were  able  to  be  of  any 
service,  I  should  be  exceedingly  well  pleased  to  do  so,  but  knowing 
that  I  cannot,  and  desiring  to  conserve  the  time  of  the  committee 
and  expedite  the  business  of  the  Legislature,  as  well  as  inci- 
dentally to  care  for  important  business  arising  on  Wednesday, 
March  9,  1921,  in  connection  with  the  affairs  of  the  bank,  of  which 
I  am  cashier,  I  respectfully  request  that  I  may  be  excused  from 
attendance." 

Arthur  H.  Smith,  President  First  National  Bank,  Chico,  Cali- 
fornia: "Will  you  kindly  excuse  me  from  appearing  before  Senate 
Budget  Committee  on  Wednesday,  March  9.  Mr.  Thelen  and  Mr. 
Fischer  have  all  the  facts  in  detail,  and  I  have  no  further  infor- 
mation." 

From  W.  E.  Blauer,  Vice-president  Bank  of  Italy,  San  Jose: 
"Have  not  made  study  of  appropriations  and;  specific  items  incor- 
porated in  each.  Do  not  feel  my  suggestions  would  assist  in  budget 


90          Recess  Attacks  Upon  King  Bill 

second  part  of  the  session,  they  found  representatives 
of  the  public  utilities  and'  banks  on  the  ground  in- 
sistent upon  a  hearing  on  the  budget  before  the  King 
bill  should  be  acted  upon.  They  got  their  budget  hear- 
ing— but  they  were  not  permitted  to  delay  the  passage 
of  the  King  bill  because  of  it. 

discussion.  Would  appreciate  being  excused  from  appearing  before 
Senate  tomorrow." 

William  Clayton,  Managing  Director  San  Diego  Electric  Railway 
Company:  "I  am  here  in  answer  to  a  subpoena  to  attend  on  the 
Senate  in  relation  to  the  budget  and  the  possibility  of  its  reduc- 
tion. While  I  am  one  of  the  signatories  to  the  signed  advertise- 
ment^ issued  by  the  Tax  Economy  League,  I  have  not  been  in  a 
position  to  personally  go  into  the  question  of  the  economies  that 
might  be  adopted,  but  Mr.  Max  Thelen,  whose  services  have  been 
retained  by  the  League  for  this  express  purpose,  can  and  will  give 
information  on  the  subject  that  will  be  valuable,  and  be  based 
upon  a  precise  and  careful  survey  of  the  subject.  As  I  am  per- 
sonally unable  to  shed  any  light  on  the  subject,  and  am  urgently 
needed  elsewhere,  I  most  respectfuly  ask  to  be  dispensed  with." 

William  Sproul,  President  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company, 
did  not  ask  the  Senate  to  excuse  him,  but  sent  his  communication 
to  his  subordinate,  Paul  Shoup.  The  letter  which  Mr.  Shoup 
received  from  his  superior  is  printed  In  the  Senate  Journal  for 
March  7.  It  reads:  "Paul  Shoup,  Sacramento.  As  vice-president 
and  assistant  to  the  president  of  this  company,  in  addition  to 
your  relation  as  president  of  Pacific  Electric  Railway  Company, 
I  hope  the  Committee  on  Hearings  on  Budget  will  accept  your 
testimony  as  serving  also  for  mine,  as  I  stated  in  the  joint  com- 
mittee hearing  on  Wednesday,  February  23,  all  that  I  had  to  say 
on  the  subject,  and  I  left  the  rest  for  you  to  develop,  so  far  as 
this  company  is  concerned." 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE   SECOND  KING  TAX  Biu,   PASSES   SENATE 

The  division  on  the  tax  issue  was  sharper  than 
ever  when  the  Legislature  reassembled  after  the 
constitutional  recess.  Heisinger's  prediction,52  made 
when  the  first  King  bill  was  before  the  Assembly, 
that  the  corporations  would  engage  in  an  extensive 
publicity  campaign  to  cloud  the  issue,  had  been  fully 
justified.  Their  newspaper  and  other  advertising 
and  publicity  was  estimated  to  have  cost  the  corpo- 
rations— to  be  collected  back  from  the  public  later 
in  utility  rate  taxes53 — upwards  of  $1,000,000.  To 
be  sure,  Governor  Stephens  and  Clyde  Seavey,  State 
tax  expert,  had  gone  over  the  State  giving  the  facts 
to  the  people.  Men  of  the  type  of  former  Governor 
George  C.  Pardee  and  Lieutenant-Governor  C.  C. 

52  See  page  76. 

53  The  policy  of  the  State  Railroad  Commission  is  not  to  allow 
such    expenditures    to    be    charged    to    operating    expenses.      But 
regardless  of  this  policy,   the  salaries   of  the  army  of  corporation 
executives  and   their  aids  who  appeared  at  Sacramento  to  oppose 
the  King  tax  bill  are  unquestionably  charged  to  operating  expenses, 
and  as  such  paid  by  the  rate-payers.     Furthermore,   these  execu- 
tives are  allowed  expense  accounts  over  which  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission has  apparently  no  supervision.     Itemized  accounts  of  these 
expenses  are  not  filed  with  the  Commission.    And  yet  these  expense 
accounts  are  allowed  as  operating  expenses,  and  as  such  paid  by 
the   rate-payers.     And,   finally,   it   is  known   that   the   corporations 
charge    such    expenses,    as    their    executive-lobbyists    were    put    to 
while  at  Sacramento  while  opposing  the  King  tax  bill,  to  operating 
expenses  when  they  can.     They  have  actually  been  discovered  in 
this.     L.  A    Reynolds,  treasurer  of  the  Great  Western  Power  Com- 
pany,  for  example,   testified  before  the  Railroad   Commission   that 
$2800   which   his   corporation   had   expended   in   opposing   the   King 
tax    equalization    bill    had    been    charged    to    operating    expenses. 
(See  Vol.  13,  pp.  878  and  following,  transcript.     Application  5585 — 


92          Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

Young  had  assisted  the  Governor,  as  did  the  pro- 
gressive members  of  the  Legislature  and  public- 
spirited  citizens  generally,  so  far  as  they  could. 
But  this  volunteer  work  in  the  public  weal  failed 
to  offset  a  million-dollar  publicity  campaign.  The 
legislators  returned  to  Sacramento  from  a  constitu- 
ency confused  and  perplexed  over  a  problem  which 
is  difficult  at  best,  but  with  the  difficulties  infinitely 
increased  by  such  newspaper  and  other  advertising 
campaigns  as  the  corporations  had  carried  on.53a 

Eventually,  the  California  public  will  unquestion- 
ably, on  one  pretext  or  another,  pay  in  utility  tax 
rates  the  cost  of  that  campaign. 

But  had  the  State  administration  paid  $1,000,000 
out  of  the  State  treasury,  or  $100,000,  or  $10,000, 

Great  Western  Power  Company,  before  Railroad  Commission  in 
April,  1921.)  The  Commission  disallowed  the  charge  as  an  operat- 
ing expense.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  they  were 
finally  disposed  of. 

Testimony  taken  before  the  Commission  showed  that  the  Pacific 
Gas  and  Electric  Company  had  charged  the  expenses  of  its  fight 
against  the  King  bill  to  surplus.  The  theory  seemed  to  be  that 
when  charged  to  surplus,  the  expense  is  borne  by  the  stockholders 
and  not  by  the  rate -payers  (consumers).  But  the  question  has 
been  raised:  Would  the  entire  wiping  out  of  a  corporation's  surplus 
by  such  charges  have  any  bearing  in  future  upon  the  rates  charged 
consumers?  The  opinion  is  growing  that  any  expenditure  made  by 
a  public  utility  corporation  becomes  a  liability  upon  the  public 
which  sooner  or  later  upon  one  pretext  or  another  is  liquidated 
by  the  rate-payers.  The  assumption  that  the  stockholders  pay 
these  lobby  expenses  throws  the  corporation  executives  into  a 
maze  of  contradictions.  When  the  King  tax  bill  was  pending 
before  the  Legislature  the  executives  contended  that  the  proposed 
increase  in  their  taxes  would  be  allowed  as  an  operating  expense 
collectable  back  from  the  public  by  means  of  Increased  utility  rates. 
On  the  theory  that  the  stockholders  bear  the  expense  of  the  lobby 
opposition  to  the  King  bill,  we  find  these  good  gentlemen  spending 
their  money  to  defeat  increase  in  their  taxes,  which,  if  their  state- 
ments have  foundation,  would  not  come  out  of  their  pockets,  but 
out  of  the  pockets  of  the  consumers. 

ssa  The  public  was  quick  to  resent  anything  that  indicated  the 
committing  of  the  people  in  blocks  against  the  bill.  The  San 
Francisco  Examiner  for  February  3,  1921,  for  example,  contained 
the  following  communication  from  Secretary  Stanley  of  the  Napa 
County  Farm  Bureau:  "In  your  issue  Saturday  morning  there 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill         93 

to  carry  the  truth  of  the  situation  to  the  public, 
the  corporation  managements  would  have  blazed 
with  indignation  and — again  using  money  which 
they  would  eventualy  recover  in  utility-rate  taxes — 
would  have  covered  the  State  with  advertising  con- 
demning such  "wanton  waste  of  the  public  funds." 

And  yet,  California  could  well  have  afforded  to 
pay  $1,000,000  out  of  the  State  treasury  to  get  the 
facts  of  the  tax  situation  to  the  public. 

But  the  people  of  California  could  not  afford  for 
themselves  such  a  publicity  campaign  as  the  corpo- 
rations actually  carried  on,  although  they  could  be 
made  to  bear  the  burden  of  the  expense  of  such  a 
campaign  when  directed  against  their  own  interests. 

During  the  first  part  of  the  session,  a  death  in  the 
Assembly  had  given  the  corporations  the  advantage 
of  requiring  only  26  votes  to  defeat  the  first  King  tax 

appeared  an  interview  from  Judge  Prank  S.  Brittain,  in  which  he 
denied  that  the  California  Farm  Bureau  Federation  was  behind 
the  Governor's  bill  to  equalize  the  corporation  State  Taxes. 
Judge  Brittain  has  just  been  appointed  attorney  for  the  federa- 
tion, his  appointment  subject  to  confirmation  at  the  meeting  of 
the  Executive  Regional  Board  next  Friday,  and  he  is  probably 
not  in  a  position  to  judge  the  views  of  the  farmer  at  this  early 
date.  He  certainly  has  no  authority  for  intimating  that  the 
farmers  are  in  favor  of  letting  the  corporations  down  easy  and 
assuming  the  tax  burden  themselves.  We  believe  that  fully 
ninety-five  per  cent  of  the  members  of  the  Napa  County  Farm 
Bureau,  and  of  the  farmers  of  Napa  County,  are  in  favor  of  the 
bill  and  hope  to  see  its  passage.  We  regret  the  position  taken 
by  the  attorney,  and  charitably  believe  that  he  has  been  mis- 
nuoted.  We  trust  that  any  attorney,  appointed  for  the  California 
Farm  Bureau  Federation,  would  be  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
farmers'  needs  and  desires."  Edward  H.  Hamilton  published  in 
the  San  Francisco  Examiner  for  February  25,  the  following  story: 
"Senator  Allen  of  Los  Angeles  produced  in  the  Governor's  office  a 
commendation  of  his  course  in  voting  for  the  bill  signed  by  many 
of  his  constituents.  Assemblyman  Harry  Lyons,  whose  district  is 
part  of  the  Allen  senatorial  district,  voted  against  the  bill  and  had 
quite  an  unusual  experience.  He  called  a  meeting  of  his  con- 
stituents to  bolster  up  his  course;  eighteen,  including  himself, 
responded.  Then  it  became  necessary  for  Lyons  to  vote  for  himself 
and  make  the  ballot  nine  to  nine  in  order  to  keep  his  course  from 
being  denounced." 


94         Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

bill  in  that  body,  instead  of  the  27  necessary  when 
the  entire  membership  of  80  is  present  and  voting. 
But  during  the  recess,  the  vacancy  had  been  filled. 
The  corporations,  therefore,  required  27  Assembly 
votes  to  defeat  the  second  King  bill,  where  26  had 
sufficed  to  defeat  the  first. 

But  in  the  Senate,  the  corporations  had  enjoyed  a 
distinct  gain.  McDonald  and  Godsil,  both  of  San 
Francisco,  who,  recovering  from  a  brain-confusing, 
albeit  temporary,  indisposition,  had  voted  for  the  first 
King  bill,  were  known  to  have  decided  to  vote  against 
the  second.  The  recess  had  developed,  however,  no 
corresponding  gain  for  the  people's  side  of  the  con- 
troversy. 

The  corporations  had  the  further  advantage  in  the 
matter  of  time.  That  taxes  might  be  collected  under 
the  second  King  bill  for  the  year  1921-22  it  was  re- 
quired that  the  measure  must  become  law  by  the  first 
Monday  after  the  first  day  of  March;  that  is  to  say, 
March  7.  The  Legislature  reconvened  on  February 
24.  There  remained  but  12  days  in  which  to  pass  the 
bill. 

To  be  sure,  the  corporations  did  offer  distinguished 
legal  opinion  to  show  that  the  State  would  risk  noth- 
ing by  delaying  passage  of  the  bill  beyond  March  7. 
But  the  Attorney-General  disagreed  with  this  corpor- 
ation-secured opinion.54  The  wording  of  the  law  in- 

54  Article  XIII,  Section  14,  Subdivision  f.  This  section  pro- 
vides: "The  rates  of  taxation  fixed  in  this  section  shall  remain 
in  force  until  changed  by  the  Legislature,  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  elected  to  each  of  the  two  Houses  voting  in  favor 
thereof.  The  taxes  herein  provided  for  shall  become  a  lien  on  the 
first  Monday  in  March  of  each  year  after  the  adoption  of  this 
section  and  shall  become  due  and  payable  on  the  first  Monday  in 
July  thereafter." 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill         95 

dicated  to  the  plain  citizen,  untrained  in  law,  perhaps, 
but  with  a  working  understanding  of  the  English 
language,  that  the  Attorney-General's  ruling  was  cor- 
rect, and  the  contentions  of  the  corporations'  attorney 
unsafe  for  guidance  of  the  Legislature.  At  any  rate, 
the  progressive  legislators  acted  upon  the  advice  of 
the  Attorney-General,  ignored  that  of  the  willing 
spokesmen  of  the  corporations,  and  made  their  plans 
to  pass  the  bill  by  the  7th,  if  the  thing  could  be  done. 

The  so-called  billion-dollar  lobby  was  equally  de- 
termined that  it  should  not  be  done.  As  one  way  to 
prevent  it,  the  corporations  made,  what  amounted 
to  a  demand  upon  the  joint  committees  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation,  that  before  the  King  bill  be  enacted, 
the  committees  hold  hearings  on  the  State  budget  to 
determine  whether  or  not  the  budget  allowances  could 
be  cut  down. 

The  way  had  been  admirably  prepared  to  enlist 
public  opinion  for  such  a  move. 

The  public  had  been  led  to  believe,  as  has  already 
been  shown,  that  the  proposed  increase  in  the  cor- 
porations' tax  rates  was  being  exacted  to  meet  the 
cost  of  an  extravagant  administration. 

There  was,  to  be  sure,  large  increase  in  the  State 
budget,  an  increase  made  necessary,  not  by  extrava- 
gance, but  quite  the  contrary.  The  Plehn  tax  system 
had  not  produced  sufficient  revenue  for  State  needs. 
Schools,  asylums  and  other  public  institutions  had  as  a 
consequence  been  inadequately  supported  for  ten  years. 
They  were  deficient  in  equipment;  cruelly  short  of 
supplies;  run  down.  The  time  had  come  when  the 


96          Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

problem  had  to  be  met.  The  question  was  whether  the 
corporations  should  be  made  to  carry  their  share  of 
the  burden,  or  whether  the  responsibilities  they  had 
shirked  should  be  lifted  to  the  overburdened  shoulders 
of  the  general  taxpayer.55 

In  the  same  misleading  publicity  campaign,  the 
public  had  been  made  to  believe  that  passage  of  the 
King  bill  would  mean  increase  in  the  taxes  of  the 
general  taxpayer.  The  contrary  was  the  fact.  In  the 
event  of  the  King  bill's  passing  it  would  not  be  neces- 
sary to  levy  an  ad  valorem  tax  for  State  purposes  upon 
the  general  taxpayer.  But  in  the  event  of  the  defeat  of 
that  measure,  an  ad  valorem  tax  to  raise  the  more 
than  $16,000,000  for  the  two  fiscal  years  would  have 
to  be  levied  upon  the  plain  people  who  were  already, 
according  to  the  State  tax  authorities,  paying  a  rate 
approximately  35  per  cent  higher  than  that  of  the 
corporations,  banks,  and  insurance  companies.56 

55  A  statement  issued  by  the  chairman  of  the  State  Board  of 
Control   shows    that   from   the   fact    that   local   taxes   can   be  fixed 
every   year   while   those   of   the   corporations   can   be   changed   but 
oncei  in  two  years,    had  alone  benefited  the   corporations  approxi- 
mately  $4,600,000    from    1911    to    1916,    and    $13,900,000   from   1916    to 
1921,  a  total  of  $18,500,000. 

56  Had   the  King  bill   been   defeated  an  ad  valorem   tax   of   22 
cents    upon    each    $100    of    assessed    valuation    of    their    property 
would    have    been    levied    upon    the   plain    citizenry    of    the    State, 
in    addition    to    the    county    municipal    and    district    taxes    which 
he    pays    and    from    which    the    corporations    are    exempted.      The 
State  Board  of  Equalization   issued   a  statement  showing  that   in 
the  event  of  the  defeat  of  the  King  bill,  the  taxes  of  the  county 
taxpayers   of    each    county    (amounts   payable   by   utilities,    banks, 
and  insurance  companies  not  Included)  would  be:  Alameda  County, 
$1,168,224;    Alpine,    $3,202;    Amador,    $26,224;    Butte,    $160,294;    Cala- 
veras,   $32,570;  Colusa,   $100,580;  Contra  Costa,  $301,294;  Del  Norte, 
$40,292;  El  Dorado,  $32,484;  Fresno,  $674,222;  Glenn,  $111,304;  Hum- 
boldt,    $170,774;    Imperial,    $322,066;    Inyo,    $46,366;    Kern,    $463,722; 
Kings,     $104,030;     Lake,     $30,290;     Lassen,     $39,880;     Los    Angeles, 
$4,653,266;     Madera,     $83,110;    Marin,     $102,268;     Mariposa,     $16,624; 
Mendocino,  $117,870;  Merced,  $127,578;  Modoc,  $36,396;  Mono,  $8,812; 
Monterey,  $156,510;  Napa,  $93,744;  Nevada,  $31,114;  Orange,  $455,750; 
Placer,    $55,488;    Plumas,    $83,022;    Riverside,    $166,430;    Sacramento, 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill         97 

The  issue,  then,  involved  in  the  tax  bill  was 
equalization  of  taxes.  The  question  of  the  sufficiency 
of  the  budget  was  not  involved,  was  not  before  the 
Revenue  and  Taxation  Committees,  but  in  the  regular 
course  of  legislative  business  would  be  dealt  with 
by  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  Assembly 
and  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate. 

Nevertheless,  when  the  Revenue  and  Taxation 
Committees  met  at  the  opening  of  the  second  part  of 
the  session,  representatives  of  the  banks  and  corpora- 
tions were  on  hand  to  press  the  demand  that  the  budget 
be  taken  up.67 

John  S.  Drum,  appearing  for  the  banks,  attacked 
the  State  Budget  Board,  charging  it  with  "arrogating 
to  itself  prerogatives  of  the  Legislature";  and  char- 

$493,602;  San  Benito,  $56,268;  San  Bernardino,  $227,488;  San  Diego, 
$347,692;  San  Francisco,  $2,574,464;  San  Joaquin,  $426,342;  San  Luis 
Obispo,  $150,506;  San  Mateo,  $157,094;  Santa  Barbara,  $211,384; 
Santa  Clara,  $412,904;  Santa  Cruz,  $91,784;  Shasta,  $69,924;  Sierra, 
$10,738;  Siskiyou,  $95,218;  Solano,  $125,522;  Sonoma,  $208,738;  Stan- 
islaus, $198,188;  Sutter,  $77,980;  Tehama,  $77,484;  Trinity,  $15,802; 
Tulare,  $224,750;  Tuolumne,  $36,516;  Ventura,  $179,974;  Yolo,  $118,- 
278;  Yuba,  $54,176— Total,  $16,658,616. 

67  This  move  had  been  deliberately  planned.  As  early  as  the 
middle  of  February  the  Tax  Investigation  and  Economy  League 
published  the  following,  in  the  form  of  a  half-page  display  adver- 
tisement, throughout  the  State: 

"The  taxpayers  must  have  a  hearing.  In  order  that  tax- 
payers as  well  as  tax-spenders  might  have  an  articulate  voice 
in  what  shall  be  paid  for  State  taxes,  the  Tax  Investigation 
and  Economy  League  has  addressed  the  following  telegram  to 
the  chairmen  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  As- 
sembly and  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate: 

"  'The  State  Budget  Board  has  recommended  to  the  Legis- 
lature expenditures  for  the  ensuing  biennium  of  $81,000,000 
in  round  figures,  which  amount  will  exceed  by  more  than 
$15,000,000  their  1919  recommendations,  plus  the  amount  voted 
last  November  for  schools,  road  bond  interest  and  orphan  aid. 
Assembly  Concurrent  Resolution,  Number  Twenty-two,  intro- 
duced January  21,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint 
legislative  committee  to  convene  at  Sacramento  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  constitutional  recess  and  investigate  and  report 
to  the  Legislature  immediately  on  the  reconvening  thereof  as 
to  the  financial  needs  of  the  State  for  the  coming  biennium, 


98         Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

acterizing  the  board's  practice  of  requiring  the  State 
departments  to  submit  their  financial  needs  to  it  as 
"a  vicious  habit."  He  insisted  that  it  is  "iniquitous  to 
charge  the  corporations  with  desiring  to  win  the  State 
government  and  as  being  tax  shirkers."  He  insisted, 
further,  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  fix  the  cor- 
poration tax  rates  before  March  7  to  make  them 
applicable  for  1921. 

Mr.  Drum's  contentions  were  strongly  supported 
by  the  various  corporation  representatives.  William 
Sproule,  president  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company, 
for  example  predicted  dismally  that  the  passage  of 
the  King  bill  would  hurt  business  and  tend  to  keep 
capital  out  of  the  State. 


and  as  to  what  sources  of  revenue  are  available  for  the  meet- 
ing of  a  deficit,  if  any  should  be  found.  This  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  where 
it  now  lies.  Instead  of  taking  advantage  of  the  interim  recess 
to  insist  upon  a  public  and  thorough  examination  of  the 
State's  financial  needs  as  provided  by  the  Hurley  resolution, 
and  as  sound  business  judgment  demanded,  so  that  the  Legis- 
lature might  have  something  more  to  act  upon  than  the  purely 
ex  parte  recommendations  for  appropriations  made  by  his 
Budget  Board,  Governor  Stephens  has  made  that  board's  abnor- 
mal recommendations  his  own  by  attempting  to  defend  them 
from  the  public  platform.  However,  the  responsibility  for  any 
increase  in  the  State's  expenditures  will  rest  upon  the  Legis- 
lature and  upon  no  one  else.  The  Budget  Board  having  recom- 
mended these  enormous  expenditures,  the  burden  is  upon  that 
board  to  justify  each  and  every  item  thereof,  and  it  is  incum- 
bent upon  the  Legislature  to  inquire  into  the  details  of  the 
supposed  necessity  behind  these  proposed  startling  increases. 
On  behalf  of  taxpayers  paying  more  than  $18,000,000  annually 
to  the  State  we  request,  that  upon  the  reconvening  of  the 
Legislature  your  committee  hold  public  hearings  upon  the 
entire  budget  at  which  the  members  of  the  Budget  Board 
recommending  these  expenditures  of  more  than  $81,000,000  for 
the  ensuing  biennium  shall  be  required  to  present  in  detail 
the  facts  supporting  every  item  of  their  recommendations. 
We  further  request  that  the  taxpayers  of  this  State,  if  they 
so  desire,  be  permitted  through  their  attorneys  or  other  repre- 
sentatives to  cross-examine  the  members  of  the  Budget  Board 
who  appear  in  support  of  that  body's  recommendations.  May 
we  have  your  assurance  that  such  public  hearings  will  be  held 
and  a  thorough  investigation  of  this  vital  subject  made?'  " 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill         99 

"How  about  keeping  out  the  farmers,  if  general 
property  taxes  go  too  high?"  inquired  Senator  Jones  of 
Santa  Qara. 

That  question   remained   unanswered. 

When  Senator  Jones  asked  Sproule  if  he  favored 
repeal  of  the  Plehn  tax  system,  Sproule  evaded  answer, 
saying  that  he  considered  that  question  premature. 

E.  W.  Camp,  general  counsel  of  the  Santa  Fe; 
Wigginton  Creed,  president  of  the  Pacific  Gas  and 
Electric  Company  and  Paul  Shoup,  vice-president  of 
the  Southern  Pacific,  supported  Mr.  Drum's  plea  for 
a  budget  hearing,  laying  particular  stress  upon  Sproule's 
contention  that  the  increase  in  corporation  and  bank 
taxes  proposed  in  the  King  bill  would  prove  most 
injurious  to  the  industries  and  general  business 
of  the  State. 

Clyde  Seavey,  of  the  State  Board  of  Control,  re- 
plied to  the  several  bank  and  corporation  represent- 
atives. Those  gentlemen  interrupted  Seavey  constantly, 
but  he  met  them  easily  and  quickly.  This  heckling  of 
Seavey  had  no  other  effect  than  to  show  him  far  better 
informed  on  the  issues  involved  than  any  of  the  army 
of  corporation  high-salaried  experts  who  opposed 
him. 

"The  State  is  paying  Seavey  $5000  a  year  for  his 
services,"  remarked  an  observer,  "and  it  is  reported 
that  these  corporation  executives  are  being  paid  from 
$20,000  to  $60,000  a  year.  Either  the  State  is  paying 
Seavey  too  little,  or  the  corporations  are  paying  these 
men  too  much." 

But,  however  that  might  be,   Seavey   showed  con- 


ioo       Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

clusively  that  the  attacks  on  the  Budget  Board  were 
unwarranted,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  issue 
before  the  committee,  namely,  tax  equalization. 

Taking  up  the  question  of  equalization,  Seavey 
challenged  the  small  army  of  corporation  and  bank 
executives  before  him,  to  disprove  his  contention  that 
the  proposed  increase  in  their  rates  would  place  them 
on  an  equality  with  the  general  taxpayer. 

"Let  the  corporations,"  insisted  Seavey,  "produce 
the  real  value  of  their  property  to  prove  that  an 
increase  in  their  tax-rate  would  be  unjust,  the  same 
as  a  common  taxpayer  is  compelled  to  do  in  appearing 
before  a  city  or  county  board  of  equalization." 58 

That  was  a  challenge  which  had  been  made  to  the 
corporations  from  the  time  the  real  character  of  the 
Plehn  tax  system  had  been  established  eight  years 
before.  They  did  not  take  it  up. 

58  Compare  this  demand  of  Seavey,  with  that  of  Senator 
Caminetti,  made  eight  years  before  under  similar  circumstances. 
The  occasion  was  a  joint  hearing  of  the  Revenue  and  Taxation 
Committees  of  the  1913  Senate  and  Assembly,  to  determine  upon 
proper  equalization  of  the  taxes  paid  by  the  banks,  corporations, 
and  insurance  companies  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  general  tax- 
payer on  the  other.  The  following  is  taken  from  the  Story  of  the 
California  Legislature  of  1913,  pages  93  and  94:  "Another  question 
— which  was  not  answered — would  have  fixed  physical  valuation 
of  the  railroads  within  the  State.  The  attorneys  and  experts  of 
the  railroads  were  before  the  committee  prepared  to  say  dog- 
matically that  the  actual  value  of  the  holdings  of  the  general 
taxpayers  of  the  State  was  $7,028,967,842.  But  they  were  not 
prepared  to  give  the  value  of  the  property  of  their  own  corpora- 
tions. Finally,  Senator  Caminetti  demanded  of  them  a  statement 
of  the  actual  value  of  railroad  properties  in  the  State.  The 
Senator  held  that  no  comparison  could  be  made  between  the 
relative  value  of  the  property  upon  which  The  People  pay  taxes 
and  the  property  of  the  corporations,  until  the  value  of  the 
property  of  the  corporations  was  known.  The  corporation  attor- 
neys stated  they  had  no  such  information,  and  referred  Caminetti 
to  the  report  of  the  State  Board  of  Equalization,  the  accuracy  of 
which  the  corporation  attorneys  and  experts  were  calling  into 
question.  'You  seem  to  know  all  about  The  People's  business,' 
thundered  back  Caminetti,  'but  you  know  very  little  about  your 
own.  It  is  not  fair  that  you  have  not  the  actual  value  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  property  here.'  " 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill        101 

The  joint  committee  by  a  vote  of  8  to  10  finally 
rejected  the  corporations'  plea  that  it  defer  action  on 
the  tax  bill  until  after  the  corporations  could  be  heard 
on  the  budget.59 

In  spite  of  this  decision,  however,  the  corporation 
representatives  continued  to  insist  that  the  budget  be 
considered  before  the  tax  bill  should  be  passed.  They 
also  continued  to  urge  upon  the  committee  that  delay 
would  not  work  to  the  advantage  of  the  corporations. 
Mr.  Drum  went  so  far  as  to  produce  an  opinion  written 
by  former  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  M.  C.  Sloss, 
to  the  effect  that  the  bill  could  be  passed  after  the 
seventh  of  March  and  be  legally  binding  on  the  cor- 
porations for  taxes  to  be  collected  in  1921. 

But  all  this  was  swept  aside  by  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney-General  that  the  safety  of  any  levy  that 
might  be  made  by  the  1921  Legislature  for  the  year 
1921,  required  it  to  be  made  within  the  time  limit,60 
that  is  to  say,  by  March  7.  The  corporations  were  to 
get  their  budget  hearing  later.  But  when  they  got  it, 
they  failed  to  establish  their  contention  that  the  budget 
showed  gross  extravagance,  or  any  extravagance  at 
all.61 

59  The  vote  by  which  the  Arbuckle-Breed  motion  to  take  up 
the  budget  before  the  King  tax  bill  was: 

For  the  motion — Senators  Hart,  Breed  and  Arbuckle;  Assembly- 
men Beal,  Benton,  Hart,  Merriam,  and  Warren. 

Against  the  motion — Senators  W.  J.  Carr,  Jones,  Boggs,  Nelson, 
King,  Sharkey;  Assemblyman  Cleary,  Crittenden,  Hume,  Brough- 
ton. 

eo  The  opinion  of  General  Webb,  with  that  of  Judge  Sloss 
will  be  found  in  full  in  the  Appendix.  The  two  should  be  read 
by  citizens  who  would  get  an  insight  into  the  comparative  views 
of  an  attorney  working  for  the  State,  and  one  hired  by  a  corpo- 
ration. 

ei  See  Chapter  X,  page  122. 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
RIVERSIDE 


IO2        Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

For  three  days,  the  Revenue  and  Taxation  Com- 
mittee permitted  the  bank  and  corporation  representa- 
tives to  go  over  the  same  ground  they  had  covered 
during  the  first  part  of  the  session,  and  to  make  the 
various  pleas  for  delays;  to  predict  the  flight  of  capital 
from  the  State;  to  plead  poverty;62  and  generally  to 
conduct  themselves  in  the  humiliating  way  to  which 
representatives  of  large  interests  descend  when  legis- 
lation to  place  them  on  an  equality  with  the  plain 
people  is  pending. 

The  drive  against  the  bill  from  Chambers  of  Com- 
merce and  civic  bodies  continued.  The  exceptional 
activities  of  the  Better  America  Federation  led 
Senator  Inman  to  expose  that  organization  in  one  of 
the  most  scathing  addresses  ever  heard  in  the  Senate 
Chamber.63  No  member  of  the  Senate — and  several  of 

62  Representation   to   the   committees   on   the   part   of  lobbyists 
for   the   banking   interests    that   the    return    on    bank    surplus   and 
capital   stock  was  only  about   5   or  6   per  cent  was   shown   to   be 
false.      Charles  F.    Stern,    State    Superintendent   of   Banks,    issued 
the    following   statement:     "The    State    banks    of    California   were 
never  before   in   so  poor  a   condition,    either   to   attempt   to  avoid 
their   fair    share    of   the    State's    expense,    or    to   plead    that    their 
share    is    too   heavy   a  burden.     The   facts   are    these:     The    State 
banks    of    California    in    1920    increased    their    total    resources    by 
upward  of  $175,000,000 — profiting  more  conspicuously  by  California's 
prosperity    than    any    other    line    of    industry.      In    1920    the    Los 
Angeles    State    banks    and    trust    companies    made    net    profits    of 
$4,178,918.42,  which  is  over  28  per  cent  on  their  capital  stock,  and 
over  17%   per  cent  on  combined  capital  and  surplus.     In  1920  the 
State  banks   of  California  combined   made   26%   per  cent  on   their 
capital    stock    and    17%    per   cent    on    their    combined    capital    and 
surplus.     It  was  The  People's  money,   borrowed  by  the  banks,   in 
the  form  of  deposits  that  earned  for  the  banks  these  profits." 

63  "It   is   plain,"    said   Senator  Inman,    "that   all  the   opposition 
to  the  King  bill  is  inspired  by  the  corporate  interests  themselves, 
and   by   such  agencies  as   we   are  subject   to    their   influence   and 
power.     We  see  the  so-called  Better  America  Federation  at  work 
using    what    control    it    possesses    to    serve    the    special    interest. 
Under  a  false  title,  which  would  seem  to  Indicate  that  the  organ- 
ization  Is  aiming  to  make  better  American  citizenship,  and  better 
national  life,  we  find   It  being   used   openly  and  actively   in   trying 
to  aid  these!  corporate   Interests,   In   their  endeavor  to  evade  Just 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill        103 

them  had  been  supported  for  election  by  the  Federation 
— attempted  to  question  Inman's  charges. 

A  special  committee  of  the  San  Francisco  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  consisting  of  Frederick  J.  Koster, 
Seward  B.  McNear,  Walton  M.  Moore,  Leon  G.  Levy 
and  Eli  H.  Wiel,  met  and  solemnly  found  "the  facts 
so  unavailable  on  which  to  base  equitable  distribution 
of  the  tax  burden  that  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
whether  and  to  what  extent  the  rates  provided  in  the 
King  bill  are  equitable."  On  these  findings  the  Chamber 
adopted  resolutions  disapproving  the  King  tax  bill. 

Telegrams  from  employes  of  the  corporations 
continued  to  pour  in  upon  the  Senators  demanding 
that  "unjust  tax  burdens"  be  not  put  upon  the 

taxation.  We  know  that  this  organization  interested  itself  in 
the  candidacies  of  various  members  in  the  Legislature  and  that 
it  spent  great  sums  of  money  to  bring  about  their  election.  We 
find  these  same  members  responding  to  the  command  of  President 
H.  M.  Haldeman  that  they  shall  vote  against  the  King  tax  bill. 
Many  worthy  business,  men  have  joined  this  organization  in  the 
belief  that  it  was  an  agency  for  public  good.  Here  in  Sacramento 
our  business  men  freely  signed  the  roll,  and  subscribed  under 
the  assurance  that  the  purpose  of  the  organization  was  to  com- 
bat I.  W.  W.ism  and  Bolshevism.  Then  appeared  a  pamphlet 
which  has  since  been  suppressed,  in  which  the  Better  Amer- 
ica Federation  proclaimed  itself  against  the  social  and  humani- 
tarian advancement  that  has  been  accomplished  in  California 
during  the  last  ten  years.  In  this  was  betrayed  the  real  purpose 
of  those  few  men  in  Los  Angeles  who  arrogate  to  themselves 
the  power  to  speak  for  this  organization.  These  gentlemen  are 
typically  of  the  reaction  type,  representative  of  'Big  Business' 
and  ready  to  serve  as  we  now  have  them  revealed  the  big  special 
interests  in  so  primitive  a  form  of  special  privilege  as  evasion 
of  Just  taxes.  You  will  find  in  this  group  of  men,  and  those 
associated  with  them,  all  those  elements  that  Senator  Hiram  W. 
Johnson  kicked  out  of  politics,  when  he  was  Governor  of  this 
State.  You  will  find  them  waging  relentless  warfare  against  him 
and  all  that  he  has  accomplished  in  the  regeneration  of  California's 
Government.  You  will  find  them  arrayed  against  all  of  those  who 
had  a  part  in  redeeming  California  from  the  grip  of  corporate 
control,  and  who  have  maintained  steadfastly  those  principles  of 
Government  established  by  the  progressive  movement.  The  part 
that  the  Better  America  Federation  has  taken  in  this  fight  is 
but  a  beginning  of  what  these  men  at  the  head  of  the  organiza- 
tion have  in  mind  to  do.  So  far  as  they  dare  they  will  advocate 
the  repeal  of  all  regulatory  agencies  of  Government  designed  to 


104        Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

corporations;  that  the  King  bill  be  defeated,64  "lest  by 
its  passage  men  be  thrown  out  of  employment." 

In  spite  of  this  bombardment  the  Revenue  and 
Taxation  Committees  went  on  with  their  hearings, 
patiently  going  over  ground  already  covered,  realizing 

protect  The  People.  Their  purpose  is  to  restore  big  business  and 
the  corporate  interests  in  power.  They  would  reopen  the  doors 
of  the  Capitol  to  special  privilege.  They  have  been  shut  for  ten 
years,  and  these  men,  who  always  know  what  they  want,  are 
prepared  to  use  all  the  power  of  the  special  interests  to  attain 
again  those  conditions,  where  they  can  rule  The  People.  To  be 
ruled  by  The  People  is  intolerable  to  them.  In  this  taxation 
contest  they  have  already  shown  their  ugliest  mood.  They  are 
threatening  this  and  that  man  with  political  ruin,  and  the  Better 
America  Federation  is  leading  the  cry.  In  this  Legislature  the 
Better  America  Federation  controls  a  number  of  votes,  sufficient 
to  jeopardize  the  King  tax  bill,  and  its  just  design  to  exact  an 
equalization  of  taxes  from  the  corporations.  The  purpose  of  the 
organization  is  ultimately  to  gain  control  of  the  Legislature,  and 
then  proceed  to  wreck  the  entire  scheme  of  advanced  legislation 
built  up  during  the  last  ten  years.  They  cannot  point,  and  do 
not  point,  to  a  single  statute  as  unsound  or  wrong.  They  simply 
want  big  business  to  be  free  to  engage  In  unregulated  and  un- 
bridled exploitation  of  The  People  of  our  State.  They  will,  when- 
ever  they  can,  shift  burdens  of  taxation  to  the  backs  of  The 
People.  To  them  the  rapacious  operations  of  big  financial  interests 
is  legitimate  business.  The  greedy  advantage  of  the  few,  as 
against  the  many,  is  their  religion.  In  the  gubernatorial  election 
of  next  year  you  will  undoubtedly  find  these  corporate  interests 
and  the  Better  America  Federation  arrayed  together  in  an  en- 
deavor to  regain  control  of  the  State.  They  already  have  their 
candidate  for  Governor.  I  warn  The  People  of  the  design  of 
those  interests  that  are  opposing  the  King  tax  bill.  Unless  the 
voters  are  on  guard  next  year  the  Better  America  Federation  and 
these  tax-evading  corporations  will  elect  a  sufficient  number  of 
members  of  the  Legislature  to  gain  absolute  control  of  our  State 
Government." 

64  The  following  are  fair  samples  of  telegrams  such  as  were 
sent  Senators  from  all  parts  of  California: 

"We  employes  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  at  this  point 
demand  the  defeat  of  the  King  tax  bill  on  the  grounds  that 
conditions  on  railroads  of  the  State  are  bad  enough  as  they  now 
stand  and  another  burden  imposed  will  only  decrease  the  employ- 
ment on  these  roads. — H.  H.  Bunds,  Jas.  A.  Blake,  P.  R.  Colson, 
M.  Pisants,  Chas.  C.  Grenman,  J.  Rodriques,  Wm.  A.  Wheeler, 
H.  H.  Foster,  J.  R.  Kilgore." 

"We  demand  the  defeat  of  the  King  tax  bill  on  the  ground 
that  the  State  should  economize  instead  of  burdening  its  railroads 
with  unjust  taxation,  this  leading  to  less  employment  than  there  is 
now,  conditions  being  bad  enough  already,  especially  in  this  county 
and  district. — J.  H.  Schild,  Joseph  Contada,  J.  A.  Davis,  A.  T. 
Brennan,  Vince  Orlando.  S.  Johns;  shop  committee  representing 
one  hundred  employes  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad." 

"We,  the  undersigned  yardmasters  at  San  Jose,  representing 
the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  demand  the  defeat  of  the  King 


Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill        105 

that  the  smooth-speaking  gentlemen  of  the  lobby  were 
talking  for  delay.  Finally,  on  February  27,  allowing 
the  Legislature  just  time  enough  to  get  the  bill  passed 
by  both  houses,  the  Senate  Committee  by  a  vote  of 
8  to  3  sent  the  King  bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  be  passed.65 

tax  bill  on  the  ground  that  the  State  should  economize  instead 
of  crippling1  the  railroads  with  unjust  taxation  which  will  lead 
to  less  employment  then  there  is  at  present,  conditions  at  this 
time  are  bad  enough  and  exceptionally  bad  in  this  county  and 
district.— G.  D.  Cotton,  F.  H.  Gwinn,  W.  J.  Parrott,  E.  J.  Scanlon, 
P.  J.  McKay." 

"You  will  be  doing  the  railroads  and  employes  both  a  great 
justice  by  defeating  the  King  tax  bill. — C.  D.  Robertson,  Agent 
S.  P.  Co." 

"It  is  our  earnest  wish  that  you  vote  against  the  King  tax  bill 
and  assist  in  every  possible  manner  in  curtailing  State  expendi- 
tures. The  world-wide  depression  such  as  has  never  been  known 
within  historic  times  demands  statesmanship,  and  as  employes 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  we  beg  you  to  help  check  further  un- 
employment.— P.  F.  McDermott,  W.  A.  Carrar,  J.  J.  Hardy,  M. 
McNamara." 

The  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue  of  March  1,  published  the 
following  statement  regarding  such  telegrams:  "  'Sign  here'  is 
the  order  being  sent  out  by  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Com- 
pany to  thousands  of  its  employes  in  all  parts  of  the  State,  and 
the  employes  are  expected  to  append  their  signatures  to  the 
following  telegram  directed  to  their  representatives  in  the  Assem- 
bly: 'As  one  of  your  constituents,  I  urge  you  to  vote  to  defeat 
the  King  tax  bill  as  the  State  should  economize  instead  of 
crippling  the  railroads  by  unjust  taxation.  Sign  here.'  This  in- 
formation was  given  out  today  by  the  Governor's  office,  which 
has  received  it  authoritatively  from  a  State  office.  The  form 
telegrams  are  being  sent  out  from  the  Southern  Pacific  offices 
in  San  Francisco,  written  on  "Western  Union  Telegraph  Company 
blanks.  Senator  J.  L.  C.  Irwin  of  Bakersfleld  waved  seven  tele- 
grams received  from  Southern  Pacific  employes  in  East  Bakers- 
fleld while  arguing  for  the  King  bill  last  night  and  questioned 
the  motive  behind  them.  Senator  W.  R.  Sharkey  of  Martinez 
received  a  telephone  call  from  a  Southern  Pacific  employe  in  his 
district  who  argued  that  the  King  bill  was  an  unjust  tax  measure. 
This  was  the  second  call  from  a  Southern  Pacific  employe  Sharkey 
received.  Sharkey  told  the  employes  the  bill  was  a  good  one  and 
that  he  would  vote  for  it  and  believed  it  would  pass  the  Assembly. 
Senator  Herbert  Slater  of  Santa  Rosa  received  telephone  calls 
yesterday  from  Southern  Pacific  employes  in  his  district,  asking 
him  to  vote  against  the  bill.  He  replied  that  the  bill  is  a  good 
one  and  that  it  would  pass  both  the  Senate  and  Assembly." 

63  The  vote  in  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  King  bill  was: 
For  the  bill— Boggs,   Carr  of  Pasadena,  Flaherty,   Jones,  Rigdon, 

Nelson,   and  King. 

Against  the  bill — Arbuckle,   Breed,   Sample. 
Two    members    of    the    committee    were    absent,    Senator    Hart 

opposed  to  the  bill  and  Senator  Sharkey  who  was  for  it. 


106        Senate  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

This  action  once  more  took  the  fight  for  equalization 
of  the  State's  taxes  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 

The  following  day,  the  Senate,  after  a  debate  of 
seven  hours,  passed  the  bill  with  27  voting  for  it  to 
13 66  against  it.  Had  one  Senator,  who  voted  in  the 
affirmative,  changed  his  vote  to  the  negative,  or  even 
had  he  failed  to  vote,  the  bill  would  have  been  de- 
feated, and  additional  tax  burden  shifted  to  the 
shoulders  of  the  already  tax-burdened  plain  people. 
Twenty-seven  Senate  votes  are  the  minimum  for  the 
passage  of  a  measure  which  increases  the  taxes  of 
corporations,  and  the  second  King  bill  received  just 
that  number. 

Chamberlin  changed  his  vote  from  "no"  to  "yes"  to 
give  notice  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  bill  had  been  passed.  This  delayed  the  measure 
one  day.  But  when  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  made, 
it  was  promptly  denied.  The  bill  then  went  to  the 
Assembly,  where  for  nearly  a  week,  the  progressive 
leaders  fought  to  increase  the  affirmative  vote  to  the 
54  necessary  for  the  bill's  passage,  while  the  billion- 
dollar  lobby  labored  to  hold  the  opposition  at  27,  the 
number  necessary  to  ensure  the  bill's  defeat. 

66  The  vote  by  which  the  second  King  tax  bill  passed  the 
Senate  was: 

For  the  bill — Senators  Allen,  Anderson,  Boggs,  Burnett,  Canepa, 
Carr,  F.  M. ;  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Crowley,  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden, 
Flaherty,  Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwln,  Johnson,  Jones,  King, 
Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon,  Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey,  and  Sla- 
ter—27. 

Against  the  bill— Senators  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Chamberlin,  Gates, 
Godsil,  Hart,  Lyon,  McDonald,  Purkitt,  Rominger,  Sample,  Shearer 
and  Tonkin— 13. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
SECOND  KING  TAX  BILL  PASSES  ASSEMBLY 

Although  the  Assembly  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation,  sitting  jointly  with  the  Senate  Committee, 
had  twice  listened  to  the  reasons  advanced  by  corpora- 
tions, banks,  and  insurance  companies  why  the  King 
tax  bill  should  not  be  passed,  in  addition  to  listening 
to  the  same  arguments  while  sitting  as  an  independent 
committee,  the  lobby,  after  the  bill  had  passed  the 
Senate,  insisted  that  the  Assembly  Committee  give  it 
what  amounted  to  a  fourth  hearing.  None  contended 
that  anything  new  would  be  offered  at  this  hearing; 
none  looked  to  see  a  single  opinion  changed.  But  the 
hearing  took  time  and  every  hour  brought  nearer  the 
seventh  day  of  March,  all  of  which  the  majority  of 
the  committee  kept  in  mind.  By  a  vote  of  9  to  6  the 
committee  finally  sent  the  bill  back  to  the  Assembly 
with  recommendation  that  it  be  passed.67 

The  first  skirmish  after  the  bill  got  back  to  the 
Assembly  came  over  a  motion  by  Graves 68  of  Los 
Angeles  that  Assemblyman  George  C.  Cleveland  of 

67  The    vote    by   which    the    Assembly    Committee    on    Revenue 
and    Taxation   finally   sent   the   second   King   tax   bill   back   to    the 
Assembly   was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Col- 
burn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Hume,  Rosenshine,  T.  M.  Wright. 

Against  the  bill — Beal,  Benton,  Bromley,  Hart,  Merriam, 
Warren. 

68  This   is   the  same   Graves   who  introduced   the  Indeterminate 
Franchise  bill  ati  the   1919   session  and  again  in  1921.     See  Chap- 
ter XIII. 


io8      Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

Santa  Cruz  be  excused  from  the  Assembly  until  March 
7.  Cleveland,  although  voting  on  both  sides,69  was 
generally  counted  for  the  bill.  On  the  final  roll-call 
he  voted  for  it;  had  he  been  absent,  the  bill  would 
have  had  only  53  votes  where  54  were  necessary  for 
its  passage;  his  absence  would  have  had  precisely  the 
same  effect  as  though  he  were  voting  with  the 
opposition. 

The  supporters  of  the  bill  promptly  objected  to  a 
leave  of  absence  being  granted  Cleveland  or  to  anyone 
else  until  the  King  bill  had  been  disposed  of.  After 
a  sharp  debate,  Cleveland,  by  a  vote  of  25  to  43,70  was 
denied  his  leave  of  absence.  Curiously  enough,  little 
opposition  developed  to  the  request  of  the  bill's  sup- 
porters that  it  be  placed  on  immediate  passage.  Only 
six  members  voted  against  it,  Cleveland,  the  man  who 
didn't  get  his  leave  of  absence,  being  one  of  them. 
The  five  who  voted  with  Cleveland  were  Baker,  Beal, 
Burns,  Heck  and  Bishop. 

But  the  opposition  was  prepared  to  contest  every 
point  the  supporters  of  the  bill  advocated.  When 
Coombs,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the  Assembly, 

69  See  Table  of  Votes  on  King  tax  measures  in  the  Appendix. 

70  The  vote  by  which   Cleveland  was  denied  his  leave  of  ab- 
sence was: 

To  let  him  go — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal, 
Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Fellom,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene, 
Hart,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Lee,  G.  W. ;  Loucks,  Lyons, 
McCloskey,  McPherson,  Merriam,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  and  Warren — 25. 

To  keep  him  on  the  job — Assemblymen  Bernard,  Broughton, 
Christian,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cummings,  Eks- 
ward,  Pulwider,  Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston, 
Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I. ;  Lee,  I.  A. ;  Lewis,  Long,  Manning,  Mather, 
McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen,  Parkinson,  Pettis,  Powers,  Prender- 
gast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Schmidt,  Smith,  Spald- 
ing,  Spence,  Stevens,  Weber,  Webster,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W., 
and  Wright  T.  M.— 43. 


Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill      109 

asked  that  it  be  considered  at  4  o'clock,  Baker  of  Los 
Angeles  moved  that  the  hour  be  2  o'clock.  Coombs' 
motion  finally  prevailed,  but  not  until  after  debate 
and  roll-call. 

When  the  bill  came  up  at  4  o'clock,  McGee  of  Sut- 
ter  Creek,  offered  a  series  of  amendments,  all  proposing 
reductions  in  the  tax  rates  fixed  for  corporations  as 
provided  in  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate.  These 
amendments  were  defeated  by  a  vote  of  29  to  49. 71 

The  debate  occupied  the  entire  afternoon,  and  was 
resumed  at  8  o'clock  after  a  two  hours'  recess  for 
supper.  It  continued  until  2  o'clock  the  following 
morning. 

The  corporation  lobby  filled  the  gallery  when  the 
debate  opened.  But  as  the  argument  became  more  and 
more  heated,  the  lobbyists  swarmed  out  of  the  gallery 
to  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  and  boldly  button-holed 
members.  It  was  the  Senate  scene  over  again,  when, 
on  the  evening  of  the  first  consideration  of  the  tax 
bill,  the  lobby  had,  until  ordered  out,  practically  taken 
possession  of  the  Senate  floor.  Such  scenes  had  not 
been  known  at  Sacramento  since  the  old  days  of  cor- 

7i  The  vote  by  which  the  McGee  amendments  were  defeated 
was: 

For  the  amendments  and  against  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the 
Senate — Assemblymen  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley, 
Brooks,  Burns,  Cleveland,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart,  Heck, 
Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Loucks,  McCloskey,  McGee,  Mc- 
Pherson,  Merriam,  Mitchell,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  Schmidt,  Stevens, 
Warren,  Weber,  and  White — 29. 

Against  the  amendments  and  for  the  bill  as  it  had  passed  the 
Senate — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badaracco,  Badham,  Bernard, 
Broughton,  Christian,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cum- 
mings,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hawes,  Hughes,  Hume,  John- 
son, Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Lee,  G.  W.;  Lee,  I.  A.; 
Lewis,  Long,  Lyons,  Manning.  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen,  Mor- 
rison, Parker,  Parkinson,  Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberta, 
Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Webster,  Wen- 
dering,  West,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  and  Wright,  T.  M.-*-49. 


no     Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

poration-domination  of  State  affairs.72  The  so-called 
new  lobby,  during  the  King  bill  debates  was  shown 
repeatedly  to  have  developed  in  boldness  and  arro- 
gance far  beyond  that  of  the  machine  lobby  of  the 
old  days. 

The  Assembly  debate  brought  out  nothing  new;  it 
influenced  no  votes.  When  the  roll  was  called  not  one 
of  the  forty-nine  Assemblymen,  who  had  voted  for  the 
first  King  bill  in  January,  changed.  But  three  members 
who  had  voted  against  the  bill  in  January — Long, 
McCloskey  and  Stevens — voted  in  the  affirmative.  This 
gave  the  measure  fifty-two  votes.  Schmidt  of  San 
Francisco,  the  new  member  elected  to  fill  the  vacancy 
existing  during  the  first  part  of  the  Session,  also 
voted  yes.  This  made  the  vote  53  to  27,  one  less  than 
the  fifty-four  necessary  for  its  passage. 
The  corporations  had  won  by  one  vote.73 
Pettis  changed  from  aye  to  no,  that  he  might  move 
to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been 
defeated. 

72  See    Chapter    XXI,    Story    of    the    California    Legislature    of 
1909,    and    for   beginnings    of    the    "new    lobby"    see    Story   of   the 
California  Legislature  of  1913,  Chapter  VIII. 

73  The   vote   by  which   the   second   King   bill    was   defeated    on 
first   roll   call   in   the   Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblyman  Anderson,  Bernard,  Broughton, 
Christian,  Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cum- 
mings,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hawes,  Heisinger,  Hornblower, 
Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline, 
Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Long,  Manning,  Mather,  McCloskey, 
McDowell,  McKeen,  Morrison,  Parker,  Parkinson,  Powers,  Prender- 
gast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Schmidt,  Smith,  Spalding, 
Spence,  Stevens,  Webster,  Wendering,  West,  Windrem,  Wright. 
H.  W.,  and  Wright.  T.  M.— 52. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker, 
Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Burns,  Graves,  Gray, 
Greene,  Hart,  Heck,  Hurley,  Loucks,  Lyons,  McGee,  McPherson, 
Merriam,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Pedrotti,  Pettis,  Ream,  Warren,  Weber, 
and  White— 28.  Pettis  was  for  the  bill,  but  voted  no  to  give  him 
opportunity  to  move  for  Its  reconsideration. 


Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill      1 1 1 

Reconsideration  was  granted  without  serious  op- 
position, only  twelve  votes  being  cast  in  the  negative.7* 
The  bill,  by  common  consent,  went  over  until  the  next 
day. 

But  when  the  next  day  came,  the  bill's  proponents 
found  they  not  only  had  failed  to  secure  the  additional 
vote  to  pass  the  bill,  but  were  in  danger  of  losing  three 
of  those  who  had  voted  with  them  when,  on  a  margin 
of  one  vote,  the  bill  had  been  defeated.  Defeated  on 
reconsideration,  the  bill  could  not  come  up  again. 
Immediate  vote  meant  final  defeat.  The  tables  were 
turned  completely.  The  bill's  proponents,  working  for 
delay  until  they  could  get  the  necessary  fifty-four 
votes,  moved  postponement  until  the  next  day.  The 
opposition,  eager  to  press  their  advantage,  vigorously 
opposed  such  action.  But  by  a  vote  of  46  to  27  75  post- 
74  The  vote  by  which  reconsideration  was  granted  was: 
For  reconsideration  and  for  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson, 
Bernard,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Christian,  deary,  Colburn,  Coombs, 
Crittenden,  Cummings,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Gray,  Hawes, 
Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L.;  Jones, 
I.;  Kline,  Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Long,  Loucks,  Manning, 
Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen,  Morrison,  Parkin- 
son, Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Say- 
lor,  Schmidt,  Spalding,  Spence,  Stevens,  "Warren,  Weber,  Webster, 
Wendering,  West,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  and  Wright,  T. 
M  —  55. 

Against  reconsideration  and  against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Ba- 
daracco,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bromley,  Greene,  Hart, 
Heck,  Lyons,  Pedrotti,  and  White — 12. 

75  The  "vote  by  which  postponement  was  granted  was: 
For  postponement  and  for  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson, 
Bernard,  Broughton,  Christian,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Critten- 
den, Cummings,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Heisinger,  Hughes, 
Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee, 
G.  W. ;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Long,  Manning,  Mather,  McDowell, 
McKeen,  Morrison,  Parkinson,  Pettis,  Powers,  Roberts,  Rosenshine, 
Ross,  Saylor,  Schmidt,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Webster,  Wen- 
dering, West,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  and  Wright,  T.  M. — 46. 

Against  postponement  and  against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Bad- 
ham,  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Cleveland, 
Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart,  Heck,  Hurley,  Loucks,  Lyons,  Mc- 
Closkey, McGee,  McPherson,  Merriam,  Morris,  Pedrotti,  Prender- 
gast, Stevens,  Warren,  Weber,  and  White — 27. 


U2      Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

ponement  was  granted.  This  put  the  final  vote  over 
until  Saturday,  March  5. 

The  position  of  the  bill's  supporters  was  by  this 
time  critical.  The  Attorney  General  had  advised  that 
the  measure  to  be  effective  for  1921  had  to  be  enacted 
not  later  than  Monday,  March  7.  Fifty-four  votes 
were  necessary  for  its  enactment.  Brought  to  vote, 
only  fifty-three  members  would  vote  for  it,  which 
meant  its  defeat.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  delay 
continued  until  adjournment  on  Monday,  the  7th,  even 
though  the  bill  be  passed,  the  corporations,  banks,  and 
insurance  companies,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney  General,  would  escape  equalization  of  their 
taxes  for  a  year.  The  leaders  supporting  the  measure, 
in  private,  frankly  admitted  themselves  beaten. 

When  the  Assemblymen  met  for  Saturday's  session, 
however,  it  became  known  that  Heck  of  Bakersfield, 
who  had  been  voting  with  the  opposition,  had  decided 
to  vote  for  the  bill.  This,  with  the  fifty-three  votes 
cast  for  it  three  days  before,  would  give  the  fifty-four 
necessary  for  its  passage. 

Heck,  when  his  contemplated  change  became 
known,  was  surrounded  by  members  of  the  type  of 
J.  O.  Bishop  of  San  Diego,  W.  F.  Beal  of  Imperial,  E. 
O.  Loucks  of  Los  Angeles,  J.  B.  Badaracco  and  George 
Warren  of  San  Francisco,  reinforced  by  Senator 
McDonald,  and  urged  to  reconsider  his  decision.  But 
Heck,  his  mind  made  up,  refused  to  be  influenced. 
This  apparently  meant  the  bill's  passage. 

But  at  once  the  story  got  out  that  Stevens  of 
Sonoma,  and  McCloskey  of  San  Benito,  who  had 
voted  against  the  first  bill  in  January,  but  who  had 


Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill      113 

voted  for  the  second  bill  on  the  first  roll-call,  would 
vote  with  the  opposition.  This,  without  other  changes, 
would  give  the  bill  only  fifty-two  votes,  two  less  than 
the  number  required  for  its  passage.  Then  it  became 
known  that  McPherson  of  Vallejo,  who  had  been 
voting  no,  had  decided  to  vote  yes  and  that  Mitchell 
of  San  Francisco  had  decided  to  take  the  same 
course.  This  would  give  the  fifty-four  votes  necessary 
for  the  bill's  passage. 

Confusion  reigned  in  the  Assembly  Chamber.  While 
the  debate  went  on,  the  leaders  of  the  opposition, 
Bishop,  Graves,  Hurley,  Loucks,  and  Beal,  made  frantic 
efforts  to  reorganize  their  forces.  Stevens  stood  on  the 
outside  of  the  group  of  the  bill's  opponents  that  were 
laboring  to  hold  Heck  in  line,  and  watched  the  effect 
of  their  arguments  upon  him.  McPherson  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  similar  group.  And  through  it  all  the 
debate  went  on  and  on.  In  the  midst  of  this  confusion 
the  bill  was  brought  to  final  vote. 

Stevens  and  McCloskey,  as  had  been  anticipated, 
voted  against  it.  Heck,  McPherson,  and  Mitchell  for 
it.  This  gave  54 76  affirmative  votes,  the  minimum 
number  required  for  its  passage. 

76  The  vote  by  which  the  King  tax  bill  finally  passed  the 
Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Bernard,  Broughton, 
Christian,  Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cum- 
mings,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hawes,  Heck,  Heisinger,  Horn- 
blower,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L. :  Jones,  I.; 
Kline,  Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Long,  Manning,  Mather, 
McDowell,  McKeen,  McPherson,  Mitchell,  Morrison,  Parker,  Par- 
kinson, Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross, 
Saylor,  Schmidt,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Webster.  Wendering, 
West,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  and  Wright,  T.  M.— 54. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker, 
Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Burns.  Graves,  Gray, 
Greene,  Hart,  Hurley,  Loucks,  Lyons,  McCloskey,  McGee,  Merriam, 
Morris,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  Stevens,  Warren,  Weber,  and  White— 26. 


ii4     Assembly  Passes  Second  King  Bill 

The  corporations  had  lost;  the  general  taxpayers 
had  won. 

The  King  tax  bill,  having  passed  both  Houses,  went 
to  the  Governor  for  his  signature.77 

77  Certain  of  the  corporations  have  since  taken  the  tax  bill  into 
the  courts.  In  this  connection  the  following  news  dispatch  dated 
San  Francisco  and  published  in  the  Sacramento  Bee  for  April  7, 
1921,  is  significant:  "(William)  P.  Herrin,  chief  counsel  for  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  left  for  New  York  today,  for  the  pur- 
pose, it  is  reported  here,  of  conferring  with  Eastern  banking 
interests  regarding  a  possible  fight  in  the  Federal  Courts  against 
the  King  tax  bill.  While  Herrin  was  silent  regarding  his  mission, 
it  is  generally  believed  that  he  has  been  summoned  East  by 
Kuhn,  Loeb  &  Co.  and  other  banking  interests,  which  have  under- 
written large  issues  of  California  bonds,  to  discuss  the  tax  ques- 
.tion.  Possible  Court  action  against  the  Act  will  be  based,  it  is 
said,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  confiscatory  and  thus  in  violation 
of  the  Federal  Constitution." 


CHAPTER  IX. 
ATTEMPTS  TO  CORRECT  EVILS  OF  TAX  SYSTEM  FAIL 

The  contest  over  the  King  taxation  measure  had 
brought  the  extraordinary  advantages  given  the  cor- 
porations under  the  Plehn  taxation  system  squarely 
before  the  1921  Legislature,  precisely  as  eight  years 
before  a  like  struggle  over  a  similar  attempt  to  increase 
the  corporations'  tax  rates  had  brought  those  same 
advantages  before  the  Legislature  of  1913.78 

In  1913,  men  of  the  type  of  Cram  in  the  Assembly 
and  Avey  in  the  Senate,  urged  the  abolishment  of  the 
Plehn  system,  and  introduced  constitutional  amend- 
ments to  that  end.  But  the  system  had  then  been  in 
operation  only  two  years,  the  general  opinion  was  that 
it  should  be  given  a  fair  trial,  and  neither  the  Cram 
nor  the  Avey  amendments  was  brought  to  vote. 

The  corporations'  rates  were  again  increased  in 
1915.  There  was  something  of  a  struggle,  but  it 
passed  quickly.  Legislators  of  the  type  of  William 
Kehoe  of  Humboldt  denounced  the  increases  as  in- 
adequate and  unjust  to  the  people.79  The  Plehn  system 
was  not  put  to  the  test  in  1915  as  it  had  been  in  1913 ; 
the  comparatively  small  increase  in  rates  passed  with 
little  publicity. 

As    the     corporations'     rates     remained     practically 

78  Sea  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913. 

79  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1915. 


ii6     Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail 

stationary  for  the  next  six  years,  the  public  all  but 
forgot  Professor  Plehn  and  his  system. 

When,  at  the  1921  session,  another  attempt  was 
made  to  equalize  the  corporation's  taxes  under  the 
Plehn  system,  public  and  Legislature  were  brought  up 
with  a  jerk,  as  they  had  been  in  1913,  to  realization 
that  under  the  Plehn  system  the  banks,  insurance  com- 
panies, and  corporations  have  the  better  of  it  at  every 
point. 

To  wipe  out  these  inequalities,  two  constitutional 
amendments  were  introduced. 

The  first  was  offered  in  the  Assembly  under  the 
joint  authorship  of  Frank  Merriam  of  Long  Beach 
and  Isaac  Jones  of  San  Bernardino.  It  offered  the 
same  remedy  as  had  been  proposed  by  Assemblyman 
Cram  and  Senator  Avey  eight  years  before,  namely, 
abolishment  of  the  Plehn  system. 

The  second  measure  was  offered  by  Senator  King. 
Under  this  measure,  as  introduced,  the  Plehn  system 
was  retained,  but  an  attempt  was  made  to  eliminate 
some  of  the  more  objectionable  features. 

The  Jones-Merriam  amendment  got  further  than 
the  Cram-Avey  measure  had  eight  years  before.  The 
Assembly  Committee  on  Constitutional  Amendments 
recommended  that  it  be  adopted.  In  the  Assembly  a 
determined  effort  was  made  to  secure  its  adoption. 
Nevertheless  it  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  30  to  3 1.80 

The   King   measure   was   adopted  by   both   houses, 

so  The  vote  by  which  the  constitutional  amendment  to  abolish 
the  Plehn  taxation  system  was  defeated  was: 

For  the  measure — Assemblymen  Badham,  Beal,  Benton,  Bernard, 
Brooks,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Hart,  Heck,  Hume,  Johnson,  Jones,  I.; 
Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Loucks,  Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell, 


Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail     117 

but  only  after  it  had  been  amended  in  the  Assembly  in 
a  way  that  retained  most  of  the  features  of  the 
Plehn  system  which  it  had  been  the  purpose  of  its 
author  to  correct. 

Two  of  the  features  of  the  Plehn  system,  which 
gave  the  Legislature  much  trouble,  were  the  rigid 
grouping  of  corporations  for  taxation  purposes,  and 
the  requirement  of  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  house  to 
change  corporations'  tax  rates,  while  a  majority  vote 
only  was  required  to  shift  the  tax  burden  to  the  general 
taxpayer. 

Under  the  rigid  classification,  for  example,  street- 
car corporations,  long-haul  steam  roads  and  short-haul 
steam  roads  were  grouped  together.  Under  this  group- 
ing, the  Legislature  to  increase  or  lower  the  rate  for 
one  of  the  sub-groups,  must  raise  or  lower  the  rate 
for  all.  It  has  no  authority  to  change  the  classification. 
To  be  sure,  the  1921  Legislature  did  attempt  to  fix  one 
rate  for  the  street-car  companies  and  another  for  the 
steam  roads,  but  only  on  the  assurance  from  the  Sta^e 
Attorney  General  that  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that  any 
interested  person  or  corporation  would  question  the 
discrimination  in  the  courts. 

Under  the  two-thirds  rule,  as  has  been  shown, 
fourteen  Senators  or  twenty-seven  Assemblymen  could 
block  any  proposed  change  in  the  corporations'  rates, 

McKeen,  McPherson,  Merrlam,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  Roberts,  Ross, 
Smith,  Webster,  White,  and  Wright,  H.  W.,  30. 

Against  the  measure  —  Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badaracco, 
Baker,  Bromley,  Broughton,  Burns,  Christian,  Cleary,  Coombs, 
Graves,  Gray,  Hawes,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Lee, 
G.  W. ;  Lyons,  McGee,  Mitchell,  Morrison,  Parker,  Parkinson, 
Powers,  Rosenshine,  Saylor,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Warren,  Wendering, 
West,  and  Windrem,  31. 


n8     Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail 

even  though  all  the  other  members  of  the  Legislature 
might  be   for  such  change. 

To  correct  these  two  defects  was  the  primary 
purpose  of  Senator  King's  amendment.  He  did  so  by: 

(1)  Providing  that  a  majority  vote  of  both  houses 
should  be  sufficient  to  change  rates  paid  by  corpora- 
tions,   banks    and    insurance    companies,    thus    placing 
them  on  the  same   footing  as  the  general  taxpayer. 

(2)  Providing   that    the    Legislature    could    by    a 
majority  vote  change  the  grouping  of  the  corporations 
for  taxation  purposes. 

The  measure  went  through  the  Senate  practically 
without  opposition.  Thirty-four  Senators  voted  for  it. 
Not  a  vote  was  cast  against  it.81 

In  the  Assembly,  the  measure  was  sent  to  the 
Committee  on  Constitutional  amendments.  The  com- 
mittee, in  executive  session,  decided  not  to  report  the 
measure  out  at  all.  Later,  this  action  was  reconsidered ; 
the  measure  was  revised  to  restore  the  two-thirds  vote 
requirement  to  change  a  corporation  rate,  and  the  re- 
quirement for  reclassification  of  corporations  for  taxa- 
tion purposes  increased  from  a  majority  to  a  two-thirds 
vote. 

In  the  closing  hours  of  the  session,  the  Assembly 
adopted  these  amendments,  adopted  the  measure,  and 
the  Senate  concurred. 

Under   the    amendment   as    it    was    finally    adopted, 

81  The  vote  by  which  the  King  amendment  passed  the  Senate 
was: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Breed, 
Canepa,  Carr,  F.  M. ;  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Duncan, 
Eden,  Flaherty,  Gates,  Harris,  Hart,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin,  Jones, 
King,  Lyon,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Rigdon, 
Rush,  Sample,  Scott,  Sharkey,  Shearer,  Slater,  and  Yonkin,  34. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 


Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail     119 

and  as  it  is  to  be  voted  upon  by  the  people  of  California 
in  November,  1922,  the  provision  for  changing  corpor- 
ation tax  rates  remains  as  it  was;  fourteen  Senators  or 
twenty-seven  Assemlymen  can  still  block  the  rest  of 
the  Legislature. 

There  can  be  reclassification  of  the  corporation 
groups,  but  here  again  under  the  two-thirds  rule 
fourteen  Senators  or  twenty-seven  Assemblymen,  re- 
gardless of  the  purpose  of  the  remainder  of  the  Legis- 
lature, can  block  such  reclassification. 

The  progressives  were  more  fortunate  with  Senate 
bills  856  and  857,  introduced  by  Senator  King  and 
Senator  W.  J.  Carr.  These  measures  were  intended 
to  give  the  State's  fiscal  agents  the  machinery  neces- 
sary to  secure  from  the  public  service  corporations 
reliable  data  on  the  value  of  their  properties  for  taxa- 
tion purposes. 

The  first  of  these,  Senate  bill  856,  provided  for  a 
continuous  appropriation  of  $25,000  for  each  biennium 
to  be  used  by  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  in 
securing  the  data  to  report  to  each  Legislature  the 
relative  percentages  of  tax  borne  by  corporations  and 
by  general  taxpayers. 

This  measure  passed  the  Senate  without  a  vote 
cast  against  it,  although  fifteen  of  the  forty  members 
failed  to  vote.82  In  the  Assembly,  fifty  members  voted 
for  it  and  none  against  it.83 

82  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  856  passed  the  Senate  was: 
For  the  bill — Senators  Boggs,  Breed,  Burnett,  Carr,  F.  M. ;  Eden, 
Flaherty,    Gates,    Harris,    Hart,    Ingram,    Johnson,    Jones,    King, 
Nelson,     Osborne,     Otis,     Purkltt,    Rigdon,     Rush,     Sample,     Scott, 
Sharkey,   Shearer,  Slater,  and  Tonkin.  25. 
Against  the  bill — None. 

83  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  856  passed  the  Assembly  was: 
For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Badaracco,   Bad  ham,  Beal,  Bernard, 


I2O    Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail 

Senate  bill  857  requires  the  public  utility  corpora- 
tions to  file  with  the  State  Board  of  Equalization  be- 
tween July  1  and  October  1  in  each  year  preceding 
a  regular  session  of  the  Legislature  a  detailed  statement 
showing  : 

(1)  The    physical   value   of   each    of    said   properties. 

(2)  The  stock  and  bond  value  of  each  of  said  prop- 

erties when  obtainable. 

(3)  The  value  of  each  of  said  properties  as  may  have 

been  determined  by  the  Railroad  Commission. 

(4)  The  values  of  such  properties  as  may  have  been 

claimed    before    the    Railroad    Commission    by 
any  or  all  of  said  persons  or  corporations. 

(5)  The   reproduction   cost   of  each   of   said  proper- 

ties when  obtainable. 

(6)  The  original  or  historical  value  of  each  of  said 

properties. 

The  bill  further  provides  that  the  values  thus 
filed  shall  be  competent  evidence  of  the  person  or 
corporation  filing  them  before  any  Court  in  the  State, 
before  the  Railroad  Commission  and  before  any  Legis- 
lative Committee. 

As  in  the  case  of  its  companion   measure,   Senate 

Christian,  deary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Cummings,  Eks- 
ward,  Fellom,  Graves,  Hart,  Hawes,  Heisinger,  Hornblower, 
Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Lee, 
G.  W. ;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Loucks,  Manning,  McCloskey,  McDowell, 
McKeen,  McPherson,  Merriam,  Mitchell,  Parkinson,  Pedrotti, 
Powers,  Prendergast,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Spalding,  Stevens, 
Warren,  Webster,  Wendering,  White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.; 
Wright,  T.  M.,  50. 

Against  the  bill — None. 


Attempts  to  Correct  Tax  Evils  Fail     121 

bill  856,  this  bill  passed  the  Senate  without  a  vote  being 
recorded  against  it.84 

The  Assembly  vote  was  not,  however,  unanimous. 
Three  members  —  Badaracco,  Baker,  and  Graves  — 
voted  in  the  negative.  But  forty-three  members  voted 
for  it,  two  more  than  the  number  required  for  its 
passage.85 

These  two  measures  give  the  State  Board  of 
Equalization  an  appropriation  to  collect  data  upon 
which  to  base  tax  rate  estimates,  and — so  far  as  a  legis- 
lative act  can — require  the  public  utility  corporations 
to  file  reliable  data  as  to  their  values  with  the  Equaliza- 
tion Board.  In  addition,  under  the  proposed  constitu- 
tional amendment,  the  Legislature  may  reclassify  the 
corporations  for  taxation  purposes. 

With  this  the  1921  Legislature  passed  the  rapidly 
growing  taxation  problem  on  to  the  Legislature  of 
1923. 

84  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  857  passed  the  Senate  was: 
For    the    bill — Senators    Allen,    Arbuckle,    Breed,    Canepa,    Carr, 

W.    J. ;    Chamberlin,    Crowley,    Dennett,    Duncan,    Eden,    Flaherty, 
Gates,     Godsil,     Harris,     Ingram,     Inman,    Irwin,     Johnson,     King, 
Osborne,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Rush,  Sample,  Scott,  Slater,  and  Yonkin,  27. 
Against  the  bill — None. 

85  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Bill  857  passed  the  Assembly  was: 
For    the    bill  —  Assemblymen    Beal,    Benton,    Bishop,    Bromley, 

Cleary,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Cummings,  Eksward,  Fulwider, 
Greene,  Hart,  Heck,  Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hughes,  Hume,  Hur- 
ley, Johnson,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis, 
Loucks,  Manning,  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen,  McPherson,  Mer- 
riam,  Parkinson,  Ream,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding, 
Stevens,  White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  Wright,  T.  M.,  43. 
Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Baker,  and  Graves,  3. 


CHAPTER   X 
THE  CORPORATIONS  GET  THEIR  BUDGET  HEARING 

While  the  corporations  were  demanding  that  the 
Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  should  postpone 
consideration  of  the  King  tax  bill  until  the  State 
budget  could  be  "investigated,"  the  Senate  was  pre- 
paring for  public  hearings  on  the  budget  to  begin  as 
soon  as  the  King  tax  bill  should  be  disposed  of. 

In  pursuance  of  that  policy,  the  Senate,  on  February 
24,  the  day  it  reconvened  for  the  second  part  of  the 
session,  adopted  a  resolution,  offered  by  Senators 
Inman,  Irwin,  Flaherty,  Sharkey,  and  Otis,  providing 
that  immediately  upon  completion  of  the  Senate's  part 
of  the  process  of  equalization  that  body  resolve  itself 
into  a  committee  of  the  whole  to  consider  the  budget 
item  by  item,  and  that  the  representatives  of  the  cor- 
porations and  banks  responsible  for  the  charges  that 
the  budget  was  unduly  large  be  required  to  appear 
before  the  Senate  and  submit  any  figures  in  their 
possession  showing  what  item  or  items  could  be 
eliminated  without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  the  State 
government.86 

86  The  resolution  in  its  preamble  set  forth  the  Senate's  posi- 
tion, and  was  in  full  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  The  Legislature,  in  pursuance  of  its  constitutional 
duty,  is  now  engaged  in  the  task  of  equalizing-  the  burden  of  taxes 
as  between  property  taxed  locally  for  local  purposes  and  property 
taxed  against  the  public  service  corporations'  and  banks  for  State 
purposes;  and 

Whereas,  Under  the  advice  of  the  Attorney- General  of  the 
State,  whatever  rates  may  be  fixed  as  a  result  of  the  present 


Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing      123 

The  resolution  was  not  adopted,  however,  without 
a  struggle.  Curiously  enough  the  opposition  came 
from  Senators  who  had  been  upholding  the  contentions 
of  the  corporation  lobby.  Although  the  opponents  of 
the  King  bill  had  to  a  considerable  extent  based  their 
opposition  on  the  theory  that  the  budget  was  too 
large,  they  attempted  amendment  of  the  resolution, 
and  six  of  them — Arbuckle,  Breed,  Hart,  Lyon, 
McDonald  and  Sample — finally  voted  against  it.  But 
the  proposed  amendments  were  all  rejected,  and  the 
resolution  adopted  as  it  had  been  originally  introduced. 

The  word  "required"  to  appear  before  the  Senate, 
as  applied  to  public  utility  and  bank  executives,  rang 

equalization  process  must  be  fixed  prior  to  the  first  Monday  in 
March,  in  order  to  be  effective  for  the  ensuing  fiscal  year;  and 

Whereas,  The  charge  has  been  made  by  representatives  of  the 
public  service  corporations  and  banks  that  the  present  budget, 
as  submitted  to  the  Legislature  by  the  State  Board  of  Control 
and  the  State  Controller,  is  unduly  large,  and  that  it  should  be 
investigated  prior  to  the  completion  of  such  equalization  process; 
and 

Whereas,  In  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  the  two  matters  are 
entirely  distinct,  and  furthermore,  to  conduct  any  such  investiga- 
tion into  the  budget  and  at  the  same  time  perform  the  constitu- 
ional  duty  of  equalizing  taxes  within  the  time  necessary  to  effect 
such  is  impossible;  and 

Whereas,  Every  member  of  the  Legislature  is  pledged  to  a 
policy  of  rigid  economy  in  State  affairs,  and  it  is  the  desire  of 
this  body  to  obtain  every  possible  criticism  of  the  budget  or 
suggestion  for  effecting  economy,  and  to  do  this  at  the  very  earliest 
possible  date  consistent  with  the  constitutional  duties  imposed 
upon  the  Legislature;  now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  immediately  upon  the  completion  of  the  process 
of  equalization,  so  far  as  the  Senate  is  concerned,  this  body  from 
day  to  day  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the 
consideration  of  the  budget,  item  by  item;  and  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  said  public  service  corporations  and  banks  who  have 
made  said  charges  be  required  to  appear  before  the  Senate  and 
submit  any  figures  in  their  possession,  showing  what  item  or 
items  can  be  eliminated  without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  the 
State  government; 

Resolved,  further,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  by 
the  president  of  the  Senate'  to  arrange  and  submit  to  the  Senate 
a  program  and  schedule  of  such  meetings,  to  the  end  that  all 
persons  interested  in  the  various  items  of  the  budget  be  given 
notice  and  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  Senate  and  be 
heard  for  or  against  such  items. 


124      Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing 

harshly  upon  the  ears  of  some  of  those  who  were 
opposing  the  King  bill.  Senator  Breed  moved  that 
the  gentler  word  "requested"  be  substituted  for  "re- 
quired," also,  that  the  fourth  paragraph  of  the  preamble 
setting  forth  that  equalization  of  taxes  was  one  thing 
and  the  budget  another,  be  eliminated.  This  motion, 
after  a  spirited  discussion,  was  withdrawn. 

A  motion  by  Senator  Irwin  to  eliminate  the  entire 
preamble  was  lost,  as  was  Senator  Crowley's  to  post- 
pone action.  Breed  came  back  with  his  motion  to 
strike  out  the  fourth  paragraph.  The  Senate  rejected 
it  by  a  vote  of  13  to  22.8T  The  resolution  was  then 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  28  to  6.88 

The  Senate  passed  the  second  King  tax  bill  on 
February  28,  thereby  completing  the  process  of  equali- 
zation so  far  as  the  Senate  was  concerned.  The  fol- 
lowing day,  March  1,  the  budget  hearings  began. 

It  soon  became  evident  that  the  several  corporation 
and  bank  executives  who  had  signed  the  sensational 
advertisements  alleging  the  budget  to  be  unnecessarily 
large,  were  not  themselves  prepared  to  substantiate 
their  radical  charges. 

87  The  vote  by  which  the  Senate  refused  to  amend  the  resolu- 
tion was: 

To  amend — Senators  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Burnett,  Duncan,  Gates, 
Godsil,  Hart,  Lyon,  McDonald,  Purkitt,  Sample,  Shearer,  and 
Yonkin,  13. 

Against  amending — Senators  Allen,  Boggs,  Canepa,  Carr,  W.  J. ; 
Crowley,  Eden,  Flaherty,  Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin,  Johnson, 
Jones,  King,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon,  Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey, 
and  Slater,  22. 

88  The  vote  by  which  the   Senate  adopted  the   resolution  was: 
For    the    resolution — Senators    Allen,    Boggs,    Burnett,    Canepa, 

Carr,  W.  J. ;  Crowley,  Duncan,  Eden,  Flaherty,  Gates,  Godsil, 
Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Nelson, 
Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon,  Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey,  Shearer,  Slater,  and 
Yonkin,  28. 

Against  the  resolution — Senators  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Hart,  Lyon, 
McDonald,  and  Sample,  6. 


Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing      125 

This  became  so  apparent  that  Senator  Harris  finally 
asked  Wigginton  E.  Creed,  president  of  the  Pacific 
Gas  and  Electric  Company  and  connected  with  nu- 
merous other  corporations,  if  he  had  in  mind  any 
item  in  the  budget  which  could  either  be  eliminated 
or  reduced  in  amount. 

Creed  replied  that  he  would  much  prefer  that  these 
details  be  taken  up  by  Mr.  Max  Thelen,  who  had  been 
hired 89  by  the  corporations  to  represent  them  in  the 
controversy,  and  by  Mr.  Will  H.  Fischer,  manager 
of  their  Taxpayers'  Association. 

"Well,"  replied  Senator  Harris,  "the  reason  I 
asked  this  question,  Mr.  Creed,  was  this:  Of  course 
I  sympathize  with  you  and  anyone  else  who  wants  to 
reduce  expenses,  but  I  did  somewhat  resent  the  pub- 
lication of  advertisements  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
first  session,  in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  budget 
was  too  much  by  something  like  $15,000,000.  I  don't 
know  whether  you  signed  that  advertisement  or  not, 
but  a  number  of  gentlemen  did.  Did  you  sign  that?" 

Then  came  Creed's  insistence  that  the  advertise- 
ments where  such  charges  were  made  had  not  been 
signed  by  individuals. 

"Not  signed  by  you?"  demanded  Senator  Harris 
increduously. 

"Well,"  continued  Harris,  "you  will  pardon  me  for 

so  Mr.  Wigginton  E.  Creed,  President  of  the  Pacific  Gas  and 
Electric  Company,  testified  before  the  Senate  that  he  and  Mr. 
John  Drum,  the  representative  of  the  organized  banks  at  the 
legislative  hearings,  had  employed  Mr.  Thelen  for  the  budget  hear- 
ing, after  consulting  with  Mr.  Paul  Shoup  of  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company.  Thelen  himself  stated  to  the  Senate  that  he  did  not 
represent  any  definite  organization,  but  had  been  hired  "to  repre- 
sent the  banks,  the  public  utilities  and  other  State-tax  corpo- 
rations." 


126      Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing 

taking  that  up,  but  I  thought  if  you  had  signed  it,  or 
been  responsible  for  it,  that  you  really  ought  to  have 
known  when  it  was  published  what  savings  could 
have  been  made,  before  you  made  specific  statements 
that  an  amount  so  large  as  that  could  be  saved.  Were 
you  responsible  yourself,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
for  publishing  it?" 

"Oh,  I  think  so,"  admitted  Creed.  "I  would  not 
dodge  responsibility  for  those  advertisements." 

And  thus  the  budget  hearing  went  on  for  several 
days.  The  distinguished  citizens  whose  names  had  been 
signed  to  the  sensational  advertisements  calling  for  a 
budget  investigation,  either  wrote  begging  to  be 
excused,90  or,  when  they  did  appear,  made  about  the 
same  statement  that  Mr.  Creed  had  made  and  referred 
the  Senate  to  Mr.  Thelen  and  Mr.  Fischer.91 

Senator  Rigdon  finally  gave  expression  to  what  the 
various  progressive  members  of  the  Senate  were 
thinking. 

"I  think,"  said  Rigdon,  "we  are  likely  here  to 
overlook  a  very  important  fact  in  this  hearing.  Now, 
the  gentlemen  who  signed  these  advertisements  are 
coming  here,  and  we  are  finding  out  that  they  do  not 


90  The  last  to  refer  to  Mr.  Thelen  and  Mr.  Fischer  was  Clarence 
M.  Oddle,   Western  Representative  American   Short  Line  Railroad 
Association.      "1    was    just    going    to    say,    gentlemen,"    said    Mr. 
Oddie,  "that  my  name  having  appeared  on  this  advertisement  that 
has    appeared   over   all    of    these    names,    that    it   did    not    appear 
because  of  my  having  any  personal  knowledge.     I  have  not  made 
a  study  of  it.     I  assume  this  Senate  is  seeking  for  the  best  evi- 
dence  in   this   inquiry,    and   it  is   not   going  to  the   best   evidence 
when   it  wastes  time  in  asking  questions  of  those  who  have  not 
made   this    study  of   it.     I   agree   with    Senator   Duncan   that   you 
should   go  ahead  and  question   those   who   have   made  a  study  of 
it,  and  I  will  yield  to  Mr.  Thelen  and  Mr.  Fischer." 

91  See  Chapter  VI;  also  footnotes  48,  51. 


Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing      127 

know  much  about  this  budget.  That  is  the  very 
point  that  I  am  interested  in.  I  think  it  is  well  enough 
if  they  know  about  the  budget  and  can  offer  us  any 
information  along  the  lines  of  their  idea  that  each  man 
be  permitted  to  tell  it,  and  if  he  does  not  know  it, 
just  to  frankly  say  so,  and  we  can  draw  our  own 
conclusions." 

"You  might,"  said  Senator  Harris,  following  up 
Rigdon,  "put  it  this  way:  If  the  rest  of  these  gentle- 
men will  admit  that  they  don't  know  anything  more 
about  it  than  those  who  have  already  addressed  us, 
then  we  might  very  well  leave  it  as  it  is,  and  take  it 
up  with  somebody  who  knows  something  about  it,  as 
the  men  who  addressed  us  know  absolutely  nothing; 
or,  if  they  do  know  it,  they  have  kept  it  to  them- 
selves." 

"I  want  to  say  this,"  said  Senator  Inman,  "that  a 
while  ago,  I  advocated  the  thing  that  Senator  Harris 
mentioned,  that  is,  if  these  gentlemen  do  not  know 
anything  about  this  budget,  let  them  say  so.  We  will 
proceed  on  our  way.  But  the  only  way  we  can  find 
out  whether  they  know  anything  about  it  is  to  ask  them 
some  questions,  and  that  is  what  we  are  proceeding 
to  do,  and  we  are  proceeding  to  find  out  the  very 
thing  Senator  Harris  said,  that  they  do  not  know 
anything  about  the  budget,  and  that  is  not  calling 
anybody  liars.  It  is  not  treating  these  gentlemen  with- 
out courtesy,  but  it  is  simply  stating  a  plain  fact. 
Now,  the  truth  is  that  these  gentlemen  signed  a 
long  list  of  advertisements,  and  they  paid  for  them, 
and  they  put  them  in  the  papers,  and  they  made  a 


128      Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing 

lot  of  statements  about  the  budget,  and  I  say  that  they 
are  responsible  for  every  single  word  in  them,  and 
they  ought  to  be  called  before  this  Senate  to  see 
whether  they  know  anything  about  it,  or  whether  they 
were  taking  the  word  of  some  understudy,  somebody 
that  was  making  this  study  for  them  and  putting  it  in 
their  hands." 

"I  have  hoped,"  said  Senator  Harris,  "to  hear 
something  concerning  the  budget  which  would  cause 
us  to  cut  it  down  or  give  us  some  standard  by  which 
to  reduce  it.  I  hold  no  brief  against  the  gentlemen 
who  have  appeared  here  to  testify,  but  the  Senate  and 
the  Legislature  of  California  is  in  this  peculiar  posi- 
tion: that  it  has  been  advertised  broadcast  in  prac- 
tically every  newspaper  in  this  State,  that  we  are 
going  to  be  called  upon  to  vote  for  a  budget  which  is 
abnormal  in  its  demands.  The  names  of  responsible 
men  are  signed  to  those  advertisements  and  it  may  be 
when  we  get  through  with  this  hearing  we  shall  find 
ourselves  forced  to  vote  for  that  budget  practically  as  it 
is  printed  here  in  this  pamphlet  today.  If  we  are 
forced  to  do  so,  and  these  gentlemen  who  have  made 
these  charges  have  not  been  brought  before  us  to 
make  their  statements,  and  give  their  showing,  we  can 
be  properly  charged  by  the  people  of  this  State  with 
not  having  done  our  duty,  and  with  not  having 
made  a  sufficient  inquiry,  and  we  will  have,  therefore, 
two  purposes  in  making  this  investigation  and  in  con- 
ducting this  examination;  that  is,  to  reduce  the  budget, 
that  is  the  first  thing,  I  think,  in  the  minds  of  all  of  us, 
to  reduce  that  budget,  if  we  can,  and  also  to  protect 


Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing      129 

ourselves  against  advertisements  which  may  be — it  yet 
remains  to  be  seen — which  may  be  untrue  in  the  state- 
ments which  they  put  before  the  people  of  this  State, 
and,  therefore,  I  say  that  everyone  of  these  men  who 
are  responsible  for  those  advertisements  should  either 
come  before  us  and  show  either  that  they  know  or 
do  not  know  anything  about  it,  or  else  they  should 
come  up  now  and  admit  it  and  save  us  the  trouble  of 
proving  it." 

"I  take  it,"  said  Senator  Jones,  "that  it  is  quite 
important,  and  I  wish  to  emphasize  my  views,  as 
expressed  by  Senator  Harris,  that  during  the  last 
month,  during  the  recess,  the  Legislature  of  this  State, 
was  held  up  before  the  public  of  California  as  respon- 
sible for  that  budget,  and  charged  in  some  advertise- 
ments directly,  and  some  inferentially,  with  being  guilty 
of  extravagance  to  the  amount  of  $15,000,000  or 
$16,000,000." 

"Or  rather  the  Budget  Board,"  went  on  Senator 
Johnson,  taking  up  Senator  Jones,  "and,  of  course, 
everybody  recognizes  it  is  simply  a  board  making 
recommendations,  and  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  the 
Legislature  to  act  upon  those  recommendations,  so 
that  in  the  last  analysis,  the  authority  and  responsibility 
is  upon  the  Legislature.  But,  as  I  say,  these  gentlemen 
have  signed  these  advertisements  throughout  the  entire 
State  of  California.  This  advertisement  was  signed  on 
the  12th  day  of  February.  That  was  some  two  weeks 
before  they  employed  Mr.  Max  Thelen,  and  I  want  to 
know  what  information  they  had  at  the  time  they 
issued  this  to  the  public  of  California  upon  which  they 
made  these  statements." 


130      Corporations  Get  Budget  Hearing 

That  information  the  Senate  did  not  get.  After 
confession  from  bank  and  corporation  executives  that 
they  had  signed  those  advertisements  without  personal 
information  to  justify  the  serious  charges  given  State- 
wide publicity,  the  Senate  called  upon  Max  Thelen, 
who  had  been  proclaiming  his  ability  to  show  how 
the  budget  could  be  cut  down. 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  CORPORATIONS'  CASE  AGAINST  THE  BUDGET 

Mr.  Thelen  was  the  man  upon  whom  the  cor- 
porations depended  to  make  good  their  published 
charges  of  extravagance  in  State  government,  and 
their  intimation,  to  put  it  mildly,  that  $16,000,000,  or 
thereabouts,  had  been  put  into  the  budget  which  should 
not  be  there. 

Thelen  was,  on  the  face  of  it,  a  valuable  man  for 
them.  He  had,  under  the  Johnson  progressive  admin- 
istration,92 occupied  important  State  positions,  and  had 
been  counted  a  progressive.  Word  that  he  had  been 
hired  by  representatives  of  the  banks  and  corporations 
in  their  controversy  with  the  State  government  created 
as  much  comment  as  had  the  similar  employment  of 
Professor  Plehn. 

Thelen  appeared  to  be  temperamentally  unable  to 
appreciate  the  obvious  fact  that  his  reputation  was 
of  more  value  to  the  corporations  than  his  knowledge 
of  the  matters  involved,  and  that,  with  the  corporations, 
this  was  no  doubt  the  important  consideration  of  his 
employment. 

92  When  Hiram  Johnson  was  elected  Governor  in  1910,  Thelen 
was  in  the  employ  of  the  legal  department  of  the  Western  Pacific 
Railway  Company.  In  March,  1911,  lie  took  the  State  Job  as 
attorney  for  the  State  Railroad  Commission.  He  "sat  in"  at 
the  writing  of  the  Public  Utilities  Act  adopted  by  the  California 
Legislature  at  its  extraordinary  session  in  December,  1911,  under 
which  the  present  State  Railroad  Commission  is  organized.  He 
became  a  member  of  the  commission  in  1912,  continuing  that  con- 
nection until  June,  1918,  serving  much  of  the  time  as  president. 


132     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

As  nearly  as  could  be  judged  by  the  testimony 
taken  before  the  Senate,  Mr.  Thelen  had  got  the  job 
about  the  time  the  Legislature  re-convened.  This  gave 
him  about  a  fortnight  to  analyze  an  $81,000,000  budget, 
investigate  the  various  institutions  affected  by  it,  and 
gather  the  data  that  warranted  his  criticism  of  the 
findings  of  the  Budget  Board  which  had  been  arrived 
at  after  an  investigation  covering  a  period  of  several 
months.93.  One  feature  of  Mr.  Thelen's  service  with 
the  corporations  was,  that  the  testimony  all  went  to 
show  he  had  been  employed  fully  a  month  after  the 
publication  of  the  first  of  the  sensational  advertisements 
for  which  his  employers  were  responsible.  But  on  Mr. 
Thelen  fell  the  responsibility  of  justifying  those  adver- 
tisements; that  is  to  say,  of  showing  how  approxi- 
mately $16,000,000  could  be  cut  from  the  two  years' 

93  Senator  Jones  summed  up  the  testimony  affecting  the  time 
of  Thelen's  hiring,  in  a  statement  to  the  Senate,  on  March  7, 
as  follows:  "I  have  his  (Thelen's)  statement  made  on  the  floor 
here  when  he  was  speaking,  about  a  week  before,  that  he  had 
been  employed  to  investigate  the  budget  and  had  been  on  that 
task  about  a  week.  That  is  as  authentic  as  I  have  been  able  to 
get.  The  gentlemen  who  employed  him  are  not  able  to  tell  us, 
but  he  told  me  it  was  about  a  week  before  he  spoke  here  last 
Friday."  This  would  make  Mr.  Thelen's  job  begin  about  Feb- 
ruary 23  or  24.  The  Legislature  reconvened  on  February  24. 
Thelen  admitted,  in  answer  to  questions  from  Senator  Inman,  that 
in  preparing  his  report  on  the  budget  he  had  visited  no  State 
institutions,  and  had  not  visited  any  since  prior  to  May,  1918. 
He  failed,  in  spite  of  Inman's  insistence  that  the  question  was 
pertinent,  to  specify  institutions  he  had  ever  visited.  Col.  John 
Chambers,  State  Controller,  in  commenting  upon  Mr.  Thelen's 
attempt  to  handle  the  budget  in  a  fortnight,  stated  to  the  Senate: 
"You  can  take  an  axe  and  break  in  the  windows  or  doors  of 
a  building,  but  you  are  doing  the  building  no  good.  No  man  who 
ever  studies  the  question  can  take  hold  of  the  budget  of  the  State 
of  California  and  in  a  week  or  two  weeks  or  in  a  month  or 
several  months,  if  he  is  new  at  that  work,  and  go  intelligently 
over  that  budget  and  make  intelligent  recommendations,  in  my 
opinion.  In  my  judgment  the  budget  is  one  of  the  best  ever  made 
in  the  State  of  California  since  1911,  when  we  practically  began 
the  making  of  a  proper  State  budget.  We  are  not  perfect,  we 
may  have  made  errors,  but  I  want  to  go  on  record  as  standing 
emphatically  in  favor  of  the  budget  as  it  is." 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     133 

budget   without   impairing   the   efficiency   of   the   State 
government. 

Mr.  Thelen  told  the  Senate  that  to  guide  him  in  his 
investigation,  he  followed  certain  rules  and  principles. 
They  were: 

(1)  No  higher  wage  scales  and  no  additional  jobs. 

(2)  Due  consideration  to  the  falling  prices  of   food, 

clothing,  and  supplies. 

(3)  No    unnecessary    maintenance    or    operating    ex- 

penses. 

(4)  No  new  functions  or  State  aid. 

(5).  New  building  projects  and  the  purchase  of 
additional  land  to  be  deferred  unless  really 
necessary  now. 

(6)     Substantial   permanent   improvements  to   be   pro- 
vided for  in  a  bond  issue,  and  not  to  be  met 
out  of  the  revenues  of  the  State. 
Following  these  rules,  Mr.  Thelen  claimed  he  could 
justify    a    reduction    of    the    budget    of    $8,146,815.50. 
This    did    not    meet    the    alleged    $16,000,000    reckless 
extravagance  as  advertised  by  Mr.   Thelen's  employer 
by  approximately  $8,000,000. 

The  figures  of  the  proposed  savings  were,  how- 
ever, imposing;  Mr.  Thelen's  opening  statement  un- 
questionably impressed  those  members  of  the  Senate 
who  were  genuinely  intent  upon  cutting  down  the 
budget  if  such  reductions  could  be  made  without  im- 
pairing the  efficiency  of  the  State  government.94  But, 

94  Senators  who  had  voted  against  the  King  tax  bill,  and  who 
had  insisted  that  the  budget  should  be  reduced  were  not  in  attend- 
ance when  the  budget  hearing  opened.  "I  notice  that  Senator 
Charles  Lyon  of  Los  Angeles,  who  has  been  evidencing  great 


134     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

as  the  hearing  proceeded,  it  became  evident  that  Mr. 
Thelen  was  quite  unconsciously  basing  his  proposed 
reductions  on  apparent  economies  which  would  even- 
tually prove  most  expensive,  or  compel  abandonment 
of  humanitarian  and  other  activities  which  had  proved 
most  advantageous  to  the  State.  Heads  of  State  de- 
partments had  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  Mr. 
Thelen's  proposed  reductions  would  bring  to  a  stand- 
still activities  upon  which  the  State's  best  development 
largely  depends.  He  proposed  other  "savings,"  by 
shifting  the  cost  of  work  done  by  the  State  back  to 
the  plain  citizen  taxpayer. 

Mr.  Thelen  advised,  for  example,  that  the  budget 
of  the  State  Department  of  Agriculture  be  reduced 
$291,676.  The  budget  board  had  recommended  for 
this  department  $974,200  for  the  two  years.  Mr. 
Thelen  recommended  that  it  be  cut  to  $672,523.98.95 

interest  in  economy  and  cutting  the  budget  is  not  in  his  seat," 
declared  Senator  Herbert  C.  Jones  at  the  start  of  he  hearings. 
"I  request  that  the  sergeant-at-arms  go  out  and  find  him."  After 
an  hour's  search  the  sergeant-at-arms  returned,  but  without  Lyon. 
"I  am  informed  by  the  sergeant-at-arms,"  said  Jones,  "that 
Senator  Lyon  has  gone  to  San  Francisco."  "I  also  notice  that 
Senators  McDonald  and  Godsil  of  San  Francisco,  who  are  much 
concerned  about  economy,  are  not  in  their  seats,"  remarked 
Jones,  "and  I  ask  that  the  sergeant-at-arms  bring  them  in."  Just 
after  the  request  had  been  made  Godsil  and  McDonald  appeared 
in  the  lobby  of  the  Senate  chamber. 

95  The  various  farming  groups  were  quick  to  protest  against 
Mr.  Thelen's  scheme  of  economy  in  cutting  down  the  appropria- 
tions for  the  work  of  the  State  Department  of  Agriculture.  Among 
the  telegrams  of  protest  received  by  Lieutenant-Governor  C.  C. 
Young,  President  'of  the  Senate,  were  the  following: 

From  the  California  Fruit  Growers'  Exchange:  "The  Agricul- 
tural Legislative  Committee,  of  which  this  organization  is  a  mem- 
ber, appointed  a  committee  to  thoroughly  investigate  the  activi- 
ties of  Department  of  Agriculture,  which  committee  gave  its 
heartiest  support  to  appropriation  recommended  by  the  budget 
committee.  We  would  urge  you  to  give  your  support  to  this 
appropriation  in  full." 

From  the  California  Walnut  Growers'  Association:  "This  or- 
ganization is  member  of  Agricultural  Legislative  Committee,  which 
thoroughly  investigated  budget  statement  Department  of  Agrlcul- 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     135 

He  added  the  suggestion,  however,  that  the  Depart- 
ment be  permitted  to  collect  fees  from  farmers  for 
services  rendered  them.  This  would  shift  the  cost  of 
the  department's  work  from  the  state  to  individual 
farmers,  and  be  in  effect  a  State  tax  upon  farming  in- 
terests. Inasmuch  as  the  farmers  with  their  fellow 
general  taxpayers  are  supposed  to  be  relieved  of  all 
State  taxes  in  lieu  of  which  they,  with  their  fellow 
plain  citizens,  bear  the  entire  burden  of  the  district, 
municipal,  and  county  taxes,  the  tendency  of  Mr. 
Thelen's  suggestion  was  apparent. 

It  may  be  stated  in  this  connection  that  through- 
out Mr.  Thelen's  statement  to  the  Senate  were  re- 
peated suggestions  that  political  subdivisions  assume 
the  financial  burden  of  functions  now  being  performed 
by  the  state.  Here  again  was  a  shifting  of  payment 
from  the  State  treasury  supposed  to  be  supplied  by 
public  utility  taxes,  to  the  county  treasury,  actually 
supplied  by  the  citizen  taxpayer.  Mr.  Thelen's  sug- 
gestions would  have  proved  poor  propaganda  mate- 

ture  and  urge  that  the  budget  approved  by  Budget  Commitee  be 
appropriated  in  full.  The  work  of  this  department  is  important  to 
the  agriculture  of  the  State  and  should  be  supported." 

From  the  California  Cattlemen's  Association:  "The  program  of 
the  State  Department  of  Agriculture  demands  the  amount  set 
up  in  their  budget.  The  agricultural  interests  of  the  State  will 
be  seriously  affected,  if  this  budget  is  materially  reduced.  The 
department,  since  its  organization,  has  been  active  in  learning 
the  necessities  of  agriculture  in  the  State  and  is  thoroughly 
equipped  to  perform  the  work  if  supplied  with  funds.  Repre- 
senting the  range  cattle  branch  of  the  industry  with  an  estimated 
investment  of  approximately  four  hundred  million  dollars,  we 
would  protest  any  material  reduction  in  the  budget  of  the  State 
Department  of  Agriculture." 

From  the  California  Woolgrowers'  Association:  "Woolerrowers 
need  every  protection  offered  through  Department  of  Agriculture 
that  cost  of  production  may  not  be  increased  particularly  while 
present  market  conditions  exist.  Careful  scrutiny  of  Department 
of  Agriculture  and  the  work  they  are  doing  indicates  necessity  for 
entire  amount  of  proposed  budget." 


136     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

rial  for  the  proponents  of  the  Plehn  taxation  scheme 
when  that  system  was  before  the  State  for  adoption 
eleven  years  before. 

The  Senate  made  quick  disposal  of  Mr.  Thelen's 
idea  that  the  farmers  should  pay  fees  for  the  serv- 
ices rendered  by  the  State  Agricultural  Department. 
One  of  these  services,  for  example,  is  the  examina- 
tion of  cattle,  particularly  dairy  cattle,  for  tubercu- 
losis. Mr.  Thelen's  idea  was  that  the  owners  of  the 
herds  should  be  charged  for  this.  The  Senators  from 
the  agricultural  districts  were  quick  to  show  that  the 
health  of  the  cities  as  well  as  of  the  farming  districts 
depends  upon  disease-free  dairy  herds ;  that,  in  many 
cases,  cattle  owners  instead  of  asking  examination  of 
their  stock  avoided  it,  even  going  to  the  extreme  of 
concealing  diseased  animals.96  The  imposition  of  fees 
for  unpopular  examinations  would  of  course  increase 
the  difficulties.  Incidentally,  the  health  of  the  people 
of  the  State  would  suffer. 

This  brought  the  discussion  down  to  considera- 
tion of  the  practicability  of  the  nearly  $300,000  de- 
crease in  the  department's  budget  which  Mr.  Thelen 
proposed. 

G.  H.  Hecke,  director  of  the  Department  of  Ag- 
riculture, presented  comparative  figures  and  a  state- 
ment of  the  work  of  his  department  which  indicated 
at  least  a  better  understanding  of  the  needs  of  the 


96  "Mr.  Thelen,"  said  one  Senator,  "a  case  came  to  my  atten- 
tion not  long-  ago,  where  one  man  deliberately  bought  one  hundred 
head,  or  about  that  number,  of  dairy  cows  that  reacted,  and 
moved  them  to  another  city,  and  there  sold  them  for  milch  cows. 
He  would  not  ask  for  an  examination." 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     137 

State   than   Mr.    Thelen    in   his    recommendations    had 
shown. 

Director  Hecke  described  the  work  of  his  depart- 
ment as  under  three  divisions,  namely:  plant  industry, 
animal  industry,  and  chemistry. 

Taking  up  plant  industry,  the  director  stated  that 
in  1914  the  plant  products  of  the  State  amounted  to 
$194,172,000.  In  1920  they  totaled  $457,000,000.  The 
budget  recommendation  for  this  division  was  $410,470 
for  a  two-year  period,  approximately  $200,000  a  year. 

Against  California's  $457,000,000  of  plant  products, 
those  of  Florida  had  a  value  of  $87,000,000.  But  the 
Florida  Department  of  Agriculture  asked  for  this  bi- 
ennium  $825,880  for  plant  industry,  more  than  double 
the  amount  asked  by  the  California  department. 

Back  of  the  enormous  appropriations  asked  by 
Florida,  Mr.  Hecke  pointed  out,  was  that  State's  at- 
tempt to  economize  on  this  item. 

Seven  years  ago,  Florida  had  cut  her  appropria- 
tions for  her  agricultural  department  until  nothing  was 
provided  for  quarantine  service  against  fruit  pests. 
Imported  citrus  nursery  stock  carried  citrus  canker. 
In  five  years,  Florida,  the  Federal  Government,  and 
individuals  had  spent  $1,328,120  in  the  attempt  to 
eradicate  the  pest.  In  addition,  235,593  orchard  trees 
had  been  destroyed,  and  2,645,514  nursery  trees.  These 
trees  had  a  value  of  $5,000,000. 

"The  California  citrus  crop  in  1920,"  went  on 
Director  Hecke,  after  giving  these  facts,  "was  esti- 
mated to  bring  to  the  growers  $54,125,000.  Florida 
tried  to  experiment,  to  cut  down,  so  she  didn't  have 


138     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

any    quarantine    service   at   all.      What   is   the    result? 
Citrus  canker.     I  want  to  tell  you  that  citrus  canker 
is  not  yet  entirely  exterminated   in   Florida.     It  may 
break  out  any  time.     After  this  disaster,  it  didn't  take 
much    to    persuade    the    Legislature    of    the    State    of 
Florida  that  it  was   necessary   to  provide    money   for 
the  upbuilding   of  the  horticultural   industry,   and   the 
result   of   it   is   known,   that   the   Horticultural    Board 
of  Florida  is  asking  for  an  appropriation  of  twice  the 
amount  of  money  that  the  division  of  plant  industry 
of  the  California  Department  of  Agriculture  is  asking." 
To   safeguard   the    State    against   the    costly    citrus 
canker,  the  Department  of  Agriculture  was  asking  the 
State  for  $43,000  for  two  years,  $1,800  a  month.     The 
public   utility    corporations   have   men   on   their   salary 
rolls  who  are  drawing  $3,000  a  month  or  more,  double 
the  entire  appropriation  which  the  Department  of  Ag- 
riculture was  asking  to  protect  California's  half-billion 
dollar    citrus    industry    against    a    pest    which    in    five 
years  had  cost  Florida  many  millions  of  dollars.     And 
the  reader  should  bear  in  mind  always,  that  the  enor- 
mous  salaries   paid  by   the   public   utility    corporations 
are    charged   to   the    corporations'   operating  expenses, 
and  are  paid  by  the  public  in  utility-rate  taxes.     The 
objection,  therefore,  of  utility  corporations  to  the  com- 
paratively small  cost  of  needed  State  work,  is  one  of 
the    incongruities    of    the    corporation-revenue    system 
which,  largely  under  corporation  guidance,  has  grown 
up  in  this  State.     Under   Mr.   Thelen's   rules   of   "no 
new    functions   or    State   aid"    and    of    "no    additional 
jobs"   such  appropriations  as  that  asked  to  safeguard 
the  citrus   industry   against   canker   would    have    been 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     139 

cut  from  the  budget.  Such  "saving"  had  already  cost 
Florida  in  five  years  more  than  $6,000,000. 

Director  Hecke  gave  many  other  illustrations  in 
terms  of  millions  of  the  importance  of  the  work  of 
the  Agricultural  Department. 

California  has,  for  example,  950,000  acres  of  al- 
falfa, the  crop  being  worth  $70,000,000  a  year.  The 
alfalfa  weevil  is  already  in  Nevada,  and  within  twenty 
miles  of  the  California  line.  Once  in  California,  it 
would  do  incalculable  damage.  All  that  stands  be- 
tween the  California  alfalfa  grower  and  the  alfalfa 
weevil  is  quarantine  directed  by  the  State  Department 
of  Agriculture. 

To  keep  out  the  Mexican  orange  maggot,  is  an- 
other feature  of  the  Department's  activities.  Only 
one  inspector  is  employed  for  this  work  at  San  Diego 
where  the  chief  danger  of  introduction  of  the  maggot 
into  California  groves  lies.  He  labors  as  many  as 
twenty  hours  a  day  to  protect  California's  citrus  indus- 
try against  this  pest.97 

"I  do  not  know,"  went  on  Director  Hecke,  "how 
it  has  happened  that  we  in  California  have  been  able 
to  keep  the  Mediterranean  fruit  fly  out  of  the  State 
for  12  years,  because  it  has  been  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  for  that  length  of  time,  and  fruit  growing  is 
absolutely  ruined  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  only 
fruit  we  admit  into  the  State  of  California  are  bananas 


97  "Any  of  you  gentlemen,"  said  Director  Hecke  in  describing 
the  orange  maggot  situation,  "who  have  ever  had  the  opportunity 
of  being  in  South  America,  or  the  Panama  Canal  Zone,  you  will 
know  what  those  oranges  are.  You  will  know  that  if  you  will  cut 
an  orange  in  two,  that  in  place  of  the  fine  and  luscious  orange, 
as  you  do  in  California,  you  will  find  a  mass  of  wriggling  maggots 
inside  of  it,  and  this  is  the  Mexican  orange  maggot." 


140    Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

and  pineapples  for  certain  reasons  which  I  will  not 
go  into,  but  they  are  apparently  free,  and  we  can 
fumigate  them.  Bear  in  mind  that  we  are  ship- 
ping out  of  the  State  of  California  nearly  100,000 
cars  of  fresh  fruit  a  year,  and  the  introduction  of 
these  fruit  flies  means  that  all  at  once  the  fruit  is 
stopped.  I  will  trust  to  God,  I  will  trust  to  the  in- 
telligence of  California  farmers,  that  we  will  find  a 
way  that  we  can  continue  fruit  growing  even  after 
the  Mediterranean  fruit  fly  gets  in  here,  but  for  the 
moment,  for  the  time  being,  there  is  going  to  be  an 
absolute  stop.  Gentlemen,  that  is  a  lesson  that  Flor- 
ida has  learned  and  that  is  the  reason  why  Florida  is 
providing  almost  100%  more  money  for  its  service 
than  California  does." 

Turning  to  the  division  of  animal  industry,  Di- 
rector Hecke  showed  the  State  has  $300,000,000  in- 
vested in  beef  cattle  alone;  that  the  State's  total  ani- 
mal products  have  an  annual  value  of  $170,000,000; 
that  for  the  safeguarding  of  this  industry  the  budget 
provided  $250,500  a  year  for  the  two-year  period; 
that  the  Department  is  charged  with  the  twofold  duty 
of  enforcing  the  laws  to  safeguard  the  public  from 
diseased  cattle,98  and  to  protect  the  herds  and  flocks. 
The  director  held  that  the  work  could  not  be  effec- 
tively carried  on  for  less. 

Taking  up  the  question  of  new  jobs  and  new  sal- 
aries, which  Mr.  Thelen  was  contending  should  be 

98  Dr.  J.  P.  Iverson,  chief  of  the  division  of  Animal  Industry, 
stated  before  the  Senate  that  records  compiled  from  Germany  and 
substantiated  in  New  York  hospitals  and  in  England  seemed  to 
show  that  about  25  per  cent  of  tuberculosis  in  children  is  of 
bovine  origin. 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     141 

disallowed,  Director  Hecke  showed  the  importance  of 
employing  two  plant  pathologists.  He  proposed  to 
pay  these  experts  $3,000  a  year,  or  the  monthly  salary 
of  one  of  the  criticizing  public-utility  executives.  In 
the  matter  of  salaries,  Mr.  Hecke  stated  the  highest 
paid  in  his  department  was  $5,000;  the  head  of  the 
division  of  animal  industry  was  receiving  only  $4,000. 
Experts  in  the  pest-control  divisions  were  receiving 
only  $3,000.  The  Director  showed  how  he  was  con- 
stantly losing  his  best  men,  men  who  occupy  positions 
where  an  error  would  cost  the  agricultural  interests 
of  the  State  hundreds  of  thousands  and  even  millions 
of  dollars,  because  they  cannot  afford  to  continue 
longer  in  the  State's  service  on  the  salaries  which  the 
State  allows." 

Mr.  Thelen's  rule  of  "no  new  jobs,  no  increase 
in  salaries,"  Mr.  Hecke  intimated,  placed  a  serious 
handicap  upon  the  State  Department  of  Agriculture, 
and  upon  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  State. 

99  Director  Hecke  gave  a  number  of  examples  of  men  who  had 
left  the  State  service  for  better  paying  positions.  The  following 
case  is  typical:  "We  had  had,"  he  said,  "a  splendid  man  (stand- 
ardization expert)  for  over  two  years,  Professor  Wellburn,  who 
served  the  State  of  California  for  $2700  a  year,  and  today  he  is 
in  charge  of  the  agricultural  work  at  high  school,  and  there  they 
recognize  his  ability  and  they  are  paying  him  $5000  a  year.  Could 
you  blame  Mr.  Wellburn  for  leaving?  I  put  in  his  place  a  Mr. 
Hoyt,  for  $2700  a  year,  and  after  Mr.  Hoyt  had  served  us  for 
about  two  years,  he  left  the  State  service  because  he  did  not  see 
any  opportunity  in  State  service,  and  he  is  now  in  the  insurance 
line,  possibly  making  a  great  deal  more  money  than  he  ever 
could  have  made  in  the  State  Department  of  Agriculture.  And 
during  the  month  of  June,  last  year,  the  State  of  California  was 
actually  without  any  man  to  carry  on  the  standardization  service 
in  the  State,  and  I  took  the  liberty  of  appealing  again  to  the 
Federal  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  I  told  Mr.  Livingston, 
Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Markets,  that  California  could  not  hire  a 
man  for  $2700  a  year;  that  we  did  not  have  any  more  money; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  was  directing  a  service  of  standardization, 
and  I  told  him  if  he  would  assign  a  mart  to  California,  I  would 
pay  him  $2700  towards  hist  salary." 


-s 

142     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

As  another  item  of  "economy,"  Mr.  Thelen  pro- 
posed a  $579,865  reduction  from  the  budget  of  the 
State  Board  of  Health.  His  principal  cut  was  from 
the  support  of  the  bureau  of  tuberculosis.  The  bud- 
geted allowance  for  this  bureau,  he  contended,  should 
be  decreased  for  the  two  years  from  $600,000  to  $200,- 
000,  a  reduction  of  $400,000. 

The  development  of  the  Bureau  of  Tuberculosis 
is,  however,  generally  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
important  achievements  of  progressive  administration 
of  the  State's  affairs. 

Prior  to  1911,  during  the  regime  of  the  old  South- 
ern Pacific  machine,  the  condition  of  those  afflicted 
with  tuberculosis  was  wretched  in  the  extreme.  In- 
deed, the  neglect  of  them  had  become  a  State  scandal. 

After  the  progressive  administration  had  broken 
the  grip  of  corporation  rule,  with  its  waste  and  graft 
and  incompetence,  one  of  the  first  matters  taken  up 
was  that  of  the  care  of  the  unhappy  victims  of  tuber- 
culosis. 

The  problem  was  not  hastily  disposed  of.  Six 
years  passed  before  the  plan  eventually  decided  upon 
was  definitely  authorized  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature. 

One  of  the  first  conclusions  reached  as  the  result 
of  initial  investigation  and  preliminary  work,  was 
that,  owing  to  the  great  number  of  native  Calif ornians 
who  needed  hospital  care,  a  State  institution  was  out 
of  the  question.  A  State  institution  would  entail  a 
long  waiting  list,  while  the  handling  of  such  patients 
a  long  way  from  home  and  friends  seriously  increased 
the  difficulties.  On  the  other  hand,  experience  had 
shown  some  sort  of  State  supervision  to  be  necessary. 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     143 

After  thorough  investigation,  it  was  decided  that  the 
counties  and  the  State  should  join  in  meeting  the 
problem. 

The  plan  finally  worked  out  placed  the  greater 
part  of  the  burden  of  the  care  of  tuberculosis  pa- 
tients upon  the  counties.  The  counties  were  to  build 
suitable  hospitals  and  undertake  the  major  part  of  the 
burden  of  maintenance.  The  State,  as  its  share,  and 
to  assure  uniform  State  supervision,  was  to  allow  $3 
per  bed  per  week  used  by  tubercular  patients  of  a 
year's  residence  in  the  State.  This  was  definitely 
authorized  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  1915. 

In  carrying  out  this  plan,  the  counties  had,  up  to 
the  opening  of  the  1921  session,  invested  $2,000,000 
in  buildings,  and  spent  $5,000,000  in  maintenance. 
With  the  $3  per  bed  allowed  by  the  State,  proper  at- 
tention can  be  and  is  given  the  patients.  The  ghastly 
conditions100  of  the  days  of  corporation  control  dis- 

100  Mrs.  Edythe  Tate  Thompson,  Director  of  the  Bureau  of 
Tuberculosis,  testified  before  the  Senate  as  to  the  conditions  in 
the  old  days  of  corporation-domination  of  the  State.  She<  told  of 
a  visit  to  a  tuberculosis  shack  used  as  a  hospital  in  Southern 
California  to  ascertain  the  character  of  treatment  given  dying 
patients.  "When  I  reached  the  hospital,"  said  Mrs.  Thompson, 
"there  were  no  lights  on  in  the  general  hospital,  but  I  walked 
to  the  back  of  the  building  and  found  a  lantern  hanging  on  a 
tree,  and  went  over  to  one  of  the  small  buildings,  which  I  dis- 
covered had  a  roof  that  leaked  in  many  places,  and  there  was 
not  even  a  locker  where  a  man  could  hang  his  clothes.  What 
little  he  had  were  thrown  on  the  bed  over  him.  As  I  started  to 
open  the  screen  door,  a  man's  voice  in  the  darkness  called  out 
and  asked  who  was  there.  I  told  him  it  was  someone  interested 
in  tuberculosis,  and  he  asked  me  to  be  careful  when  I  opened  the 
door,  that  he  could  not  see,  but  that  a  patient  had  died  with  a 
hemorrhage  attempting  to  get  back  from  the  bathroom  into  his 
bed,  and  that  he  had  fallen  in  front  of  the  door.  It  was  with 
some  difficulty  that  I  pushed  open  the  door  and  got  in,  to  find 
him  lying  in  a  pool  of  blood.  All  of  the  men  in  the  ward  were 
too  ill  to  leave  their  beds.  It  took  me  nearly  an  hour  afterwards 
to  find  someone  to  carry  out  his  body,  which,  had  it  not  been 
for  my  visit,  would  have  been  lying  there  until  morning.  I  can 
paint  you  another  picture,"  went  on  Mrs.  Thompson,  "of  a  hospital 
where  the  women  patients  received  the  only  care  that  was  given 


144     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

appeared.  As  a  direct  result,  in  four  years  the  State 
death  rate  from  tuberculosis  fell  from  188  per  100,000 
to  154,  in  spite  of  the  war  and  influenza,  and  the 
deaths  due  to  Federal  Government  war-risk  cases, 
which  the  Government  contracted  with  California's 
institutions  to  handle. 

The  1921  budget  provided  $300,000  a  year  as  the 
State's  share  in  the  work.  Mr.  Thelen  proposed  to 
reduce  that  amount  to  $100,000.  Such  reduction 
would  "save"  the  State  $400,000  for  the  biennium 
but  would  amount  virtually  to  abandonment  of  the 
plan  which  had  been  worked  out  so  satisfactorily  for 
the  handling  of  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  with 
which  California  is  confronted. 

them  by  the  male  orderly.  These  women  were  absolutely  bed- 
lidden  and  unable  to  care  for  themselves.  They  told  me  they 
used  to  take  turns  In  the  night  trying  to  keep  awake  as  they  were 
practically  in  the  ward  with  the  men  patients,  and  they  were 
afraid.  And  I  can  paint  you  another  picture  where  the  tubercu- 
lous patients  were  kept  upstairs  in  a  room  under  the  roof,  where 
there  was  a  mattress  on  the  floor  and  no  bedding1  and  a  tin  tomato- 
can  used  as  a  sputum  cup,  and  I  judge  never  emptied.  The 
hospital  superintendent  told  me  that  they  kept  it  that  way  so 
the  people  who  came  would  not  stay.  And  I  can  paint  you  another 
picture  of  shacks  where  women  patients  were  stripped  to  their 
waists  in  wards  with  other  patients  and  exhibited  to  medical 
students  as  types  of  emaciation;  of  another  place  where  mater- 
nity, cancer,  and  tuberculosis  cases  were  kept  in  the  same  ward; 
of  other  places  where  Irish  stew  was  brought  in  365  days  in  the 
year,  twice  a  day,  in  buckets,  and  left  in  the  ward  for  the  patients 
to  eat.  There  were  no  tables,  each  patient  simply  dipping  down 
into  the  bucket,  with  his  bowl,  and  eating  what  he  could  of  it; 
of  still  another  place  where  it  was  so  crowded  that  the  room  used 
as  the  patients'  dining-room  was  also  used  as  a  dormitory,  and 
where  freo.uently  the  dead  would  lie  through  two  meals  in  the 
room  where  patients  had  to  eat  before  they  could  get  around  to 
removal.  Places  where  there  was  no  provision  for  dying  cases, 
so  that  they  were  brought  in  and  placed  in  the  wards  without 
even  a  screen  around  them  when  they  died.  None  of  the  places 
had  nurses  or  doctors  excepting  the  orderly,  and  he  made  the 
rounds.  All  of  the  buildings  were  hopelessly  out  of  repair.  In 
one  instance  I  know  of  a  hospital  where  the  rain  flooded  the 
wards  so  that  even  patients  who  had  strength  enough  to  move 
their  beds  out  of  the  rain  could  not  do  it  without  being  drenched. 
Still  other  places  where  food  was  left  during  the  nights  for 
patients  to  get  up  and]  prepare  their  morning  meal  with." 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     145 

Mr.  Thelen's  proposed  "savings"  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  and  in  the  Department  of  Public 
Health  were  typical  of  his  recommendations  for  re- 
ductions in  other  departments.  The  heads  of  these 
departments  made  as  convincing  a  showing  against 
him  as  had  the  representatives  of  the  departments  of 
health  and  of  agriculture. 

The  Senate  gave  Mr.  Thelen  courteous  hearing. 
It  did  not  act  on  his  suggestions. 

Mr.  Thelen  gave  repeated  evidence  of  the  diffi- 
culties of  mastering  a  State  budget  in  a  fortnight.  For 
example : 

The  water  plane  of  the  Santa  Clara  Valley,  be- 
cause of  increased  demand  upon  wells  for  irrigation 
purposes,  has  been  lowered  steadily,  until  even  the 
best  producing  wells  have  gone  dry.  Such  wells  are 
being  deepened  to  meet  the  lowered  water  plane. 

The  well  on  the  grounds  of  the  State  Normal  School 
at  San  Jose  has  been  no  exception  to  the  other  wells 
of  the  valley.  When  it  failed,  the  school  was  obliged 
to  buy  water  from  a  private  water  company  at  an 
expense  of  $2000  a  year.  As  a  business  proposition 
the  State  engineering  department  decided  to  do  what 
the  farmers  of  Santa  Clara  Valley  are  doing,  namely, 
deepen  the  well.  For  this  purpose,  $8500  was  pro- 
vided in  the  budget.  When  Mr.  Thelen  reached  this 
item,  he  struck  it  out  with  the  statement  that  the  State 
should  "save  that  money"  by  buying  water  from  the 
corporation  which  controls  the  San  Jose  water  sup- 
ply.101 Dr.  W.  W.  Kemp,  president  of  the  San  Jose 

101  Mr.   Thelen's  comment  on   this   item  was  as  follows:     "The 
next  item,  'New  Well,  $8500.'     Well,  I  happen  to  know  something 


146     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

State  Normal  School,  pointed  out  in  replying  to  Mr. 
Thelen  that  in  four  years  under  Mr.  Thelen's  plan,  the 
State  would  pay  to  the  corporation  for  water  the  entire 
cost  of  bringing  the  well  into  production. 

The  principal  budget  cut  which  Mr.  Thelen  pro- 
posed did  not  represent  a  reduction  of  expenditures,  but 
a  putting  off  the  day  of  payment  by  issuing  bonds 
for  admittedly  needed  improvements  aggregating 
$2,211,877.50. 

Such  a  course  would  have  marked  a  decided  de- 
parture from  the  settled  State  policy  of  meeting  the 
cost  of  ordinary  building  out  of  current  income.102  The 

about  the  water  situation  down  in  San  Jose.  When  I  was  a 
member  of  the  Railroad  Commission,  I  heard!  a  number  of  cases 
affecting  the  San  Jose  Water  Company,  and  I  went  over  their 
property.  It  is  an  old-established  reliable  company,  which  has 
an  adequate  supply  of  water.  Under  those  circumstances  I  do 
not  understand  why  the  State  should  proceed  to  dig  a  well  for 
$8500  on  this  property,  when  it  can  get  the  water  easily  by  mak- 
ing application  to  the  San  Jose  waterworks.  I  understand  that 
a  well  that  they  had  on  the  property  went  dry.  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  desired  to  dig  another  dry  well,  or  just  what  the 
plan  is.  But  my  suggestion  is,  unless  good  reason  be  shown,  that 
this  Normal  School  arrange  to  get  its  water  from  the  concern 
from  which  everybody  else  gets  it  in  San  Jose,  and  I  deduct  the 
sum  of  $8500." 

102  "In  all  of  the  State's  history,"  said  Clyde  Seavey  in  dis- 
cussing this  feature  of  Mr.  Thelen's  recommendations  for  reducing 
the  budget,  "only  a  very  few  bond  issues  have  been  put  out  for 
building  purposes.  Part  of  this  capitol  building  was  built  that 
way;  a  good  deal  of  it  was  built  by  appropriation.  A  bond  issue 
of  $3,000,000  for  new  State  Capitol  buildings  was  voted;  the  bond 
issue  for  the  University  building  of  $1,000,000  was  voted,  and  a 
$1,000,000  building  in  San  Francisco  was  voted.  Outside  of  that, 
I  do  not  remember  any  bond  issues  voted  by  the  people  of  the 
State  of  California  for  building  needs.  And  it  has  been  the  policy, 
as  I  said,  from  the  beginning  of  the  State,  to  take  care  of  its 
current  needs  out  of  current  revenue,  and  as  each  succeeding 
period  comes  along  needs  are  apparent  and  come  up,  and  as  a 
matter  of  policy,  I  think  the  State,  through  its  Legislature,  has 
decreed  wisely  in  the  matter  of  taking  care  of  those  current 
needs  out  of  current  revenue.  It  is  true  that  at  the  present  time, 
the  State,  like  every  other  community,  is  three  or  four  years  be- 
hind in  its  building  problem.  Building  was  stopped  during  the 
war.  It  has  been  partially  stopped  since  then,  because  of  high 
prices,  but  if  there  is  revenue  in  sight,  the  current  needs  of  the 
State  should  be  taken  care  of  out  of  that  revenue,  because  addi- 
tional needs  will  come  up  for  future  years,  and  for  future  genera- 
tions of  like  nature." 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     147 

progressive  members  of  both  houses  were  unanimous 
in  their  opinion  that  the  policy  should  not  be 
changed.103  Speaker  H.  W.  Wright  of  the  Assembly 
stated  at  one  of  the  hearings  that  Thelen's  bond-issue 
suggestion  reminded  him  of  "the  story  of  the  man 
who  said  he  was  determined  to  live  within  his  means 
even  though  he  had  to  borrow  money  to  do  so." 

After  the  matter  had  been  thoroughly  considered, 
not  a  member  of  the  Senate  supported  Mr.  Thelen's 
bond-issue  scheme.  By  a  vote  of  36  to  0  the  Senate 
declared  the  plan  to  hold  a  special  bond  election  for 
that  purpose  to  be  "unwise  and  financially  unsound. 
By  a  vote  of  31  to  3,  the  Senate  further  declared 
against  departure  from  the  established  policy  of  caring 
for  the  ordinary  building  program  out  of  current 
revenues.  The  three  who  voted  in  the  negative  were 
Senators  Chamberlin,  Gates,  and  Lyon. 

The  impracticability  of  that  part  of  Mr.  Thelen's 
plan  by  which  he  proposed  to  save  $1,570,523  for  the 
biennium  by  denying  all  salary  increases  and  the 
creation  of  new  positions  was  convincingly  demon- 
strated by  State  officials,  who,  in  positions  of  responsi- 
bility find  themselves  unable  to  hold  technically  trained 
men  because  of  the  inadequate  salaries  allowed  State 
officials  and  employes.  Practically  every  head  of  a 
department,  who  appeared  before  the  Senate,  had 
concrete  examples  of  efficient  men  being  hired  out  of 
the  State's  employ  by  corporations  and  individuals  who 


103  The  corporations  themselves  were  divided  on  this  issue. 
Manager  Fischer  of  the  so-called  Taxpayers'  Association  an- 
nounced to  the  Senate  that  his  association  was  not  in  accord 
with  Mr.  Thelen's  bond-issue  idea. 


148     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

paid  a  higher  wage  than  the  State  allows.  The  evidence 
was  conclusive  that  Mr.  Thelen's  proposed  "saving" 
would  add  to  the  difficulties  of  an  already  difficult 
situation,  and  prove  costly  economy  for  the  State.104 

Convincingly  was  the  fact  brought  out  by  Clyde 
Seavey  of  the  State  Board  of  Control  that  the  State, 
in  order  to  keep  a  service  of  6161  persons,  had 
been  obliged  during  1919-20  to  employ  11,794,  a  labor 
turnover  of  practically  100  per  cent.105 

Mr.  Thelen's  experience  as  a  State  official  illus- 
trated very  well  the  inadequacy  of  the  State's  com- 
pensation of  its  effective  men.  As  State  Railroad 


104  The  loss  to  the  State  of  trained  men  because  of  the  Inade- 
quate  compensation   allowed  by   the   State  was  shown  throughout 
the  hearing.     "The  State  of  California,"  said  State  Superintendent 
of   Public   Instruction   Will   C.    Wood,    for   example,    "has    invested 
in   men   like    Dr.    Edwin    R.    Snyder   of   the   Vocational    Education 
Department,   about  six  years  of  very  careful   investigation  of  the 
educational  system  of  the  State  of  California.     I  happen  to  know 
that  Dr.  Snyder  has  been  offered  $5400  per  annum  by  the  Federal 
Government;   that  his   salary   in   this   State  is  $4000;   I   happen   to 
know  that  he  has  held  on  to  the  State  office,   hoping  that  some- 
thing would  be  done  at  this  session  of  the  Legislature  to  enable 
him   to   remain   with   the   State   department.     Is   it  economy,   is   it 
efficiency    in    State    Government,    to    allow    a    man    who    has    this 
amount  invested1  in  him  by  the  State,  to  go,  and  put  a  green  hand 
on  the  job  who  will   take  four  or  five  years  getting  ready  to  do 
the  work  which  ought  to  be  done  now." 

105  "It   has    been   impossible,    especially   in    special    lines,"    said 
Clyde    Seavey    in    presenting    figures    in    answer    to    Mr.    Thelen's 
"saving"  on  the  score  of  salary  increases  andi  new  positions  to  the 
Senate,  "to  keep  people  in  the  service  of  the  State  very  long.     In 
the  Department  of  Engineering,  there  are  but  twelve  engineers  and 
architects  that  have  been   in  the   employ  of  the  State,  since  1914. 
There  has  been  a  big  turnover  in   the  matter  of  technical  service 
in   that   department,    and   it   has   been  reflected   in    the   service   of 
the    department.      It   was    impossible    to   get   100   per   cent   service 
under   those    conditions.     In    the   Industrial   Accident   Commission, 
although    that    commission    has    no    deductions    against    it,    so    far 
as  this  budget  is  concerned,  including  the  compensation  insurance 
fund,    of  a   total    organization    which   numbered   200   in   1914   there 
are  but  39  that  are  still  in  its  employ,  and  it  now  has  an  organiza- 
tion  of  considerably  more  than  the  200.     Men   technically  trained 
are  coming  in  and  leaving  the  State's  service  in  all  of  its  depart- 
ments very  rapidly,  much  to  the  detriment  of  the  service  of  the 
State.     Even  now,  with  the  increase  that  has  been  allowed,   and 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     149 

Commission,  Mr.  Thelen  received  $8000  a  year,  $666.66 
a  month.  He  devoted  perhaps  a  month  to  the  budget 
controversy.  His  compensation  for  that  job  has  not, 
so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  been  made  public. 

During  the  month  devoted  to  the  budget  hearing, 
the  Senate  examined  ninety-five  witnesses.  The  cor- 
poration executives  and  the  agents  whom  the  corpora- 
tions employed  to  represent  them,  failed  to  show  that 
the  budget  could  be  reduced  $16,000,000  without  im- 
pairing the  efficiency  of  the  State  departments,  or 
even  the  $8,000,000  which  their  agent,  Mr.  Thelen, 
attempted  to  demonstrate,  or  at  all. 

The  Senate  in  its  report  on  the  hearings  showed 
that  while  the  aggregate  of  the  proposed  State  budget 


considerable  increase  was  allowed  in  some  of  these  technical  lines, 
we  are  still  7  or  8  per  cent  below  the)  average  salaries  paid  on 
the  outside  for  the  ordinary  technical  service,  and  that  is  not 
taking  into  consideration  specially  trained  men  that  are  needed 
in  the  State  as  well  as  in  other  lines  of  /duty.  There  is  a  single 
public  service  corporation  in  this  State  which  employs  ten  en- 
gineers in  its  Bureau  of  Engineering  at  a  salary  of  from  six  to 
twelve  thousand  dollars  a  year,  a  number  equal  to  that  of  all  the 
officers  in  the  State  of  California  receiving  like  amounts.  These 
private  corporations  and  semi-private  corporations  have  found  that 
they  have  to  pay  for  technically  trained  men  and  they  do  pay  for 
technically  trained  men,  and  they  take  from  the  State  its  best 
technically  trained  men  as  they  develop.  The  average  salary  of 
the  technically  trained  men  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  has 
increased  but  19  per  cent  since  1914,  and  the  average  salary  for 
employes  in  the  Motor  Vehicle  Department,  a  non-technical  organi- 
zation, has  increased  but  8  per  cent  since  1914.  The  increase  in 
the  average  salary  of  all  State  employes,  from  April,  1919,  to 
January  21,  was  22.4  per  cent.  Of  all  of  the  officers  and  employes 
of  the  State  service,  including  the  Governor,  those  of  the  Univer- 
sity and  the  judges  of  the  courts,  60  per  cent  receive  $125  a 
month  and  less,  and  that  is  counting  maintenance,  where  they 
get  maintenance;  87  per  cent  receive  $200  a  month,  and  less,  and 
only  3  per  cent  receive  more  than  $300  per  month,  which  is  a  sum 
that  corporations  pay  to  highly  trained  clerks  in  many  instances. 
The  total  expenditure  for  State  salaries  for  all  State  agencies 
exclusive  of  the  University  and  the  Highway  Commission,  was 
on  April  1,  1919,  $7,183,487.  On  January  1,  1921,  there  was  paid 
$9,142,964,  an  increase  of  27  per  cent,  which  includes  additional 
activities  and  new  men,  as  well  as  increased  salaries." 


150     Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget 

was  $81,387,692.51  for  the  two-year  period  as  the 
corporations  had  published,  $1,064,533.78  of  that 
amount  was  to  cover  deficiency  items  for  the  1919-21 
biennium,  making  the  items  for  the  new  biennium 
$80,323,138.73. 

The  1919  budget  had,  indeed,  as  the  corporations 
had  advertised,  been  $47,580,953.16,  but  the  1919 
Legislature  actually  appropriated  $52,673,255.66.  This, 
with  the  deficiency  appropriations  of  $1,064,533.78 
brought  the  appropriations  for  the  1919-21  biennium 
up  to  $53,737,809.44.  Thus  the  increase  in  the  1921 
budget  over  the  total  appropriations  for  the  1919-21 
biennium  was  $26,585,329.29. 

Of  this  $26,585,329.29  increase,  $18,000,000  was 
accounted  for  by  the  moneys  voted  for  special  purposes 
by  the  people  at  the  1920  election.  The  increased  fixed 
charges  thus  added  to  the  State  budget  by  vote  of  the 
people  included  increases  of  $10,900,000  for  the  com- 
mon schools,  $2,500,000  for  high  schools,  $4,000,000  for 
highway  bond  interests  transferred  from  the  counties 
to  the  State,  and  $600,000  aid  to  dependent  children. 
Deducting  the  $18,000,000  from  the  excess  of  $26,- 
585,329.29,  and  the  excess  of  the  1921  budget  over 
the  total  appropriation  for  the  1919-21  biennium  is 
reduced  to  $8,585,329.29.  This,  the  Senate  found,  was 
represented  quite  largely  by  items  for  buildings,  re- 
pairs and  improvements,  the  total  budget  recommenda- 
tions for  such  purposes  being  $5,043,622.50.  This 
brought  the  increase  down  to  $3,541,706.79  for  the 
two  years'  period,  or  $1,770,853.39  a  year,  which,  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  State's  growth  during 


Corporations'  Case  Against  Budget     151 

the  two  years,  could  scarcely  be  regarded  as  extrava- 
gant.106 

Such  were  the  findings  of  the  Senate  after  a  month's 
hearing.  Its  full  report  and  findings  will  be  found 
printed  in  the  Senate  Journal  for  April  14,  1921. 

In  this  way  concluded  perhaps  the  most  extra- 
ordinary attack  by  responsible  persons  upon  a  respon- 
sible administration  of  an  American  State. 

From  any  viewpoint  the  incident  was  extraordinary. 
Even  though  the  corporations  had  succeeded  in  justify- 
ing every  one  of  their  widely  published  charges  and 
innuendoes  of  extravagance  in  State  government,  it 
would  have  had  no  bearing  upon  the  issue  before  the 
Legislature,  the  equalizing  of  taxes  between  the  general 
taxpayer  group  on  the  one  hand  and  the  corporation 
group  on  the  other.  As  the  corporations  failed  to  show 
extravagance,  or  even  unreasonable  budget  allowances, 
their  widely  published  charges  were  shown  to  be  as 
foundationless  as  they  were  ill-advised. 

ice  Compare  these  figures  with  those  of  the  advertisements 
signed  by  the  executives  and  agents  of  the  public  utility  corpora- 
tions. See  Chapter  VI,  page  81. 


CHAPTER  XII 
REVISING  THE  BUDGET  UPWARD 

We  have  seen: 

(1)  That  the  1921  Legislature,  acting  upon  the  find- 

ings of  the  State's  experts,  attempted  to  equalize 
tax  rates  as  between  banks,  utility  corporations 
and  insurance  companies,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  plain  citizenry  on  the  other. 

(2)  That  the   corporations   denying  the   necessity   of 

such  increase  raised  the  cry  of  extravagance 
in  the  administration  of  State  affairs. 

(3)  That    when    given    opportunity    to    do    so,    the 

executives  of  such  corporations  confessed  they 
had  no  personal  knowledge  to  justify  their 
grave  intimations  and  charges,  but  referred 
the  Senate  to  their  employes. 

(4)  That   these   employes   made   no   more   convincing 

showing  in  justification  of  the  charges  than  had 
their  principals. 

(5)  That  throughout  the  debates  on  the  tax  equaliza- 

tion measure,  members  who  were  opposing  in- 
crease in  the  corporations'  rates  repeatedly 
insisted  that  economies  in  State  affairs  should 
be  practiced  to  make  the  increase  proposed  in 
the  corporations'  rates  unnecessary.  Indeed,  the 
supporters  of  the  King  tax  equalization  bill 
were  placed  before  the  State  in  the  light  of 


Revising  the  Budget  Upward          153 

recklessly  extravagant  and  unworthy  legisla- 
tors, while  the  opponents  of  the  equalization 
bills  were,  by  inference  at  least,  made  out 
the  guardian  watchdogs  of  the  State  treasury. 

To  be  sure  it  was  unjust  to  ascribe  extravagance  to 
the  supporters  of  the  King  equalization  bill;  to  credit 
its  opponents  with  the  motives  of  a  treasury  watch- 
dog was  more  than  unjust;  it  was  funny.  But  such 
were  the  impressions  spread  broadcast  over  the  State 
in  the  propaganda  against  the  proposed  equalization. 
Great  is  the  power  of  liberally  financed  publicity. 

The  group  of  Senators  who  had  led  the  support  of 
the  King  bill  had  for  several  sessions  endeavored  to 
hold  down  appropriations.  In  the  report  on  the  budget 
they  attempted  to  limit  appropriations  to  the  amounts 
decided  upon  by  the  Budget  Board.107  They  were, 
however,  defeated  in  this  by  the  opponents  of  the 
King  Tax  bill,  led  by  Senator  Gates,  chairman  of  the 
Senate  Finance  Committee.  Senator  Gates  moved  that 


107  The  rule  was  proposed  in  the  first  draft  of  the  Senate 
Committee  report  on  the  budget  hearings,  and  was  as  follows: 
"It  Is  the  sense  of  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  that  the  State  Budget  was  and  is  justified  in  reducing 
and  eliminating  the  various  requests  for  appropriations  in  the 
manner  and  in  the  amount  expressed  in  the  report  of  the  Budget 
Board,  and  that  there  should  be  no  increase  in  any  of  the 
amounts  recommended  by  the  Budget  Board,  and  that  there 
should  be  no  appropriations  for  any  of  the  budgetable  items 
disallowed  by  the  Budget  Board.  The  rule  was  rejected  on 
Senator  Gates'  motion  to  lay  the  declaration  on  the  table." 
The  vote  was: 

To  lay  the  declaration  on  the  table  and  against  the  rule — 
Senators  Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Breed,  Burnett,  Chamberlain,  Crowley, 
Flaherty,  Gates,  Godsil,  Hart.  Ingram,  Johnson,  Lyon,  McDonald, 
Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rominger,  Rush,  Sample,  Shearer,  and 
Tonkin— 22. 

Against  laying  the  reclaration  on  the  table  and  for  the  rule — 
Senators  Allen,  Carr,  F.  M. ;  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden, 
Harris,  Inman,  Irwin,  Jones,  King,  Rigdon,  Scott,  Sharkey,  and 
Slater— 15. 


154         Revising  the  Budget  Upward 

the  motion  to  adopt  the  rule  to  limit  appropriations 
to  budget  recommendations  be  laid  on  the  table.  This 
was  done  by  a  vote  of  22  to  15,  the  opponents  of  the 
King  Tax  bill  supporting  the  motion.  From  that 
moment  all  pretext  of  keeping  down  appropriations  to 
the  limit  fixed  by  the  Budget  Board  was  abandoned. 

There  is  just  one  way  to  defeat  an  appropriation 
bill  without  legislative  vote  or  Governor's  veto,  and 
that  is  to  hold  it  in  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  or 
the  Assembly  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  It  was 
the  hope,  if  not  the  program,  of  those  members  who 
really  wanted  the  appropriations  kept  down,  that  these 
committees  would  send  no  excess  appropriation  bills 
to  either  house  for  consideration. 

The  credit  for  breaking  up  this  arrangement,  or 
discredit  as  one  may  view  it,  is  due  to  these  supporters 
of  the  University  of  California  who  were  at 
Sacramento  urging  enormous  appropriations  for  that 
institution. 

Curiously  enough  among  the  advocates  of  this  lib- 
eral policy  toward  the  University  were  those  who 
opposed  the  passage  of  the  King  equalization  bill,  and 
were  foremost  in  criticizing  the  budget  as  unneces- 
sarily large. 

The  Legislature  has  always  treated  the  University 
most  liberally.  In  1915,  $3,240,736.87  were  appropriated 
for  the  institution;  $4,218,747.40  in  1917;  $5,310,173.11 
in  1919— $12,769,657.38  for  the  three  sessions. 

Under  the  State  law  by  which  the  University  gets 
a  definite  allowance  each  year  from  the  State,  an  ap- 
propriation of  $3,639,499.15  was  assured. 


Revising  the  Budget  Upward          155 

This  did  not  satisfy  the  Regents.  They  went  before 
the  Budget  Board  demanding  approximately  $10,000,000 
with  a  request  for  an  additional  $5,000,000  to  be  raised 
by  a  bond  issue.108 

In  comparison  with  allowances  made  for  other  State 
institutions,  the  demands  made  by  the  Regents  loom 
large.  The  Budget  Board,  for  example,  allowed  the 
seven  State  Normal  Schools109  $2,140,200  for  the 

108  The  finances  of  the  University  of  California  are  not  subject 
to   the   supervision    of   the   State's   fiscal   agents   as  are   the   other 
State   institutions.     Of   this   unique  feature   the   State   Controller's 
office  says:    "The  (University's)   funds  are  handled  directly  by  the 
Regents   through  the   comptroller    (of  the  University)    neither  the 
(State)    Board   of   Control   nor   the    (State)    Controller   have   audit 
powers.     All  claims  are  made  up  in  the  University  and  forwarded 
to  the  Governor  for  approval.     Through  courtesy  these  claims  are 
sent  to  the  Board  of  Control  and  put  through  in  the  regular  way, 
but  if  a  question  should  be  raised  as  to  the  power  of  audit  the 
(State)    constitution  provides  that  the  University  shall  have  con- 
trol of  its  funds.     The  constitution  gives  the  University  extremely 
broad    powers   as    to    its   finances."      Thus,    when   the    Legislature 
appropriates    $3,000,000,    $5,000,000,    or   $10,000,000   or  more   for  Uni- 
versity   purposes,    the    money    is    turned    over    to    the    Board    of 
Regents,   where,    as    the   Controller's   office   puts   it,    "The    (State) 
constitution  gives  the  University  extremely  broad  powers  as  to  its 
finances."     As  the  inner  workings  of  the  affairs  of  the  University 
are  brought   under   the  light  of  publicity  the  definite   exercise  of 
the  Regents'  powers  over  the  State's  money  thus  placed  at  their 
disposal    justifies    the    Controller's    statement.      For    example,    the 
Regents  paid  their  former  Comptroller,  Mr.  Ralph  Merritt,  a  salary 
of  $7500  a  year.     That  was  50  per  cent  more  than  the  State  Con- 
troller receives,  and  within  $2500  of  the  $10,000  paid  the  Governor. 
To  increase  the  salary  of  either  of  State  Controller  or  Governor, 
an    amendment    to   the    State    constitution    adopted   by   two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  each  House  of  the  Legislature  and  passed  by 
a  majority  vote  of  the  1,000,000  or  more  voters  of  the  State  would 
be    required.      In    the    case    of    Mr.    Merritt    (testimony    given    at 
Budget    hearing    showed)     the    Regents    advanced    his     salary    to 
$12,000  a  year.     This  was  done  by  simple  majority  vote  without 
the   public  knowing  very  much  about   it.     This  gave  Mr.   Merritt 
a   salary   $2000   a  year  greater   than   the   salary  paid   the   Governor 
of   the   State,    and    50  per   cent   greater  than   the   salary  paid   the 
members  of  the  State  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners.     Senator 
Duncan,    in  bringing  this  fact  out  at  the  Senate  budget  hearing, 
alleged  that  Mr.  Merritt  had  been  given  $6000  in  addition  "in  face 
of  the  fact,"  as  Senator  Duncan  expressed  it,    "that  the  Regents 
face  a  deficit  of  some  $900,000." 

109  The  Normal  School  at  Los  Angeles,  being  a  branch  of  the 
State  University,   is  not  included.     The  budget  allowances   to   the 
others  were:    Chico,   $199,700;  Fresno,   $260,000;  Humboldt,  $124,900; 
San    Diego,    $329,100;    San    Francisco,    $268.100;    San    Jose,    $649,300; 
Santa  Barbara,   $309,100. 


156         Revising  the  Budget  Upward 

biennium.  The  University  asked  an  appropriation  900 
per  cent  greater  than  the  combined  Normal  School 
budget  allowances.  To  put  it  another  way,  the  Regents 
asked  for  the  University  the  equivalent  of  the  support 
and  upkeep  of  sixty-three  Normal  Schools  of  the 
standard  maintained  in  California.  And  Regents  of  the 
University,  acting  in  their  capacity  as  public  utility 
executives,  through  Mr.  Thelen  and  other  hired  agents 
attacked  the  Normal  School  allowances  as  unnecessarily 
high.110 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  every  im- 
portant corporation  that  placarded  the  State  with 
allegations  of  extravagance  on  the  part  of  the  State 
administration,  is  represented  on  the  Board  of  Uni- 
versity Regents.  Two  of  the  Regents,  John  A.  Britton 
of  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  and  Mortimer 
Fleishhacker  of  the  Great  Western  Power  Company  m 
were  among  the  signers  of  the  advertisements,  published 


no  Mr.  Thelen  proposed  a  reduction  of  $296,500  from  the  budget 
allowance  of  the  San  Jose  Normal  School;  Chico,  $36,284;  Fresno, 
$30,000;  Humboldt,  $39,700;  San  Diego,  $96,760;  San  Francisco, 
$56,900;  Santa  Barbara,  $141,650,  a  total  of  $697,794,  from  a  total 
budget  allowance  of  $2,140,200,  or  more  than  30  per  cent.  From 
the  total  allowance  budgeted  and  fixed,  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia, $9,232,386.15,  Mr.  Thelen  proposed  a  cut  of  $50,000  for 
deciduous  fruits  and  $200,000  for  the  treatment  of  dependents  at 
the  medical  college,  a  total  of  $250,000,  or  less  than  3  per  cent  of 
the  total  allowance. 

111  At  a  hearing  before  the  State  Railroad  Commission,  it  was 
brought  out  that  Mr.  Fleishhacker  had  received  a  salary  of  $30,000  a 
year  from  the  Great  Western  Power  Company.  This  is  as  much 
as  the  Governor  of  the  State  receives  for  three  of  the  four  years 
of  his  term,  as  much  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Control  or  the 
Secretary  of  State,  or  the  State  Controller,  or  the  State  Treasurer 
receives  in  six  years.  As  additional  compensation  to  his  $30,000 
salary,  Mr.  Fleishhacker  received  3  per  cent  of  the  net  income  of 
his  corporation,  which  gave  him  an  additional  salary  of  $24,000 
a  year.  This  arrangement  was  discontinued  and  Fleishhacker 
was  given  a  flat  salary  of  $50,000  a  year. 


Revising  the  Budget  Upward          157 

throughout  the  State  during  the  recess  period,  attack- 
ing the  budget.112 

Of  the  more  than  $15,000,000  asked  by  the  Univer- 
sity Regents  the  Budget  Board  allowed  $5,592,887,113 
in  addition  to  $3,639,499.15  fixed  charges,  which  gave 
the  University  the  enormous  total  of  $9,232,836.15. 
This  was  an  increase  of  approximately  80  per  cent  over 
the  allowance  of  1919. 

In  spite  of  the  generous  treatment  given  the 
University  by  the  Budget  Board,  bills  providing  ap- 
propriations for  the  University  in  excess  of  the 
$9,232,836.15  allowed  in  the  budget,  were  introduced. 
Partisans  of  the  University  proceeded  to  get  these 
excess  bills  through.  In  doing  so,  they  assisted  in  the 
passage  of  certain  road  bills  which  had  not  been  recom- 
mended by  the  Budget  Board.  A  scramble  to  get 
through  bills  in  excess  of  budget  allowances  followed. 
Once  the  bars  were  down,  appropriations  of  millions 
in  excess  of  the  budget  passed  both  houses  and  were 
sent  to  the  Governor. 

Governor  Stephens  met  this  raid  on  the  State 
treasury  by  grimly  applying  the  veto  in  no  less  than 
thirty-two  instances,  thereby  denying  appropriations 
which  had  been  passed  by  both  Senate  and  Assembly 
to  the  total  amount  of  $3,397,520. 

Of  the  thirty-two  bills  thus  vetoed,  eleven  originated 
in  the  Senate,  carrying  $1,011,800  in  appropriations; 
and  twenty-one  in  the  Assembly,  carrying  $2,385,720. 

112  See  Chapter  VI,  page  81. 

us  In  1919,  the  Budget  Board  allowed  $910,000.  The  1921  allow- 
ance, $5,592,887,  was  an  increase  of  500  per  cent  over  the  1919 
budget  allowance. 


158         Revising  the  Budget  Upward 

Analysis  of  the  votes  of  the  Senators  and  Assem- 
blymen on  these  vetoed  appropriation  measures,  who 
had  opposed  the  King  tax  bill,  is  suggestive.  Thirteen 
Senators  had  voted  against  the  bill.  They  had  between 
them  416  possible  votes  on  the  thirty-two  vetoed 
appropriation  bills.  Of  these  416  votes,  only  16  were 
cast  in  the  negative.114  Six  of  the  thirteen,  Arbuckle, 
Breed,  Gates,  Godsil,  Rominger,  and  Shearer,  failed 
to  cast  a  negative  vote.  Senator  Breed  heads  the 
list  of  affirmative  votes,  with  31  votes  for  the  bills  out 
of  a  possible  thirty-two.  His  seat-mate,  Senator  Gates, 
is  a  close  second  with  thirty  affirmative  votes. 

The  twenty-six  Assemblymen  who  had  voted  against 
the  King  tax  bill  made  similar  showing.  One  of 
them,  White  of  Los  Angeles,  proved  an  exception,  by 
voting  against  ten  of  the  thirty-two  bills.  But  Mr. 
White  voted  for  fourteen,  and  failed  to  vote  on  eight. 
The  other  twenty-five  King  bill  opponents  cast  only 
sixteen  negative  votes  between  them.  These  twenty-five 
"watch-dogs  of  the  State  treasury"  could  have  cast 
a  total  of  800  votes  against  the  bills. 

Of  the  twenty-six,  fourteen — Badham,  Beal,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Hart,  Lyons,  McCloskey,  McGee,  Merriam, 
Morris,  Pedrotti,  Ream,  Stevens,  and  Weber — voted 

11*  The  number  of  votes  cast  on  the  thirty-two  bills  by  the 
thirteen  Senators  who  voted  against  the  King  tax  bill  was  as 
follows: 

Yes     No  Absent  Yes    No  Absent 

Arbuckle    27        0  6  McDonald    14        1          17 

Breed    31        0  1  Purkitt   16        4          12 

Chamberlin     5        3          24  Rominger    7        0          25 

Gates    30        0  2  Sample    24        2  6 

Godsil    10        0          22  Shearer    17        0          15 

Hart    16        2          14  Yonkin    23        2  7 

Lyons    7        2          23 

Totals— For  the  bills,  227;  against,  16;  failed  to  vote,  173. 


Revising  the  Budget  Upward          159 

for  the  appropriations  every  time  they  voted.  The 
twenty-six  gave  a  total  vote  of  464  in  favor  of  the 
appropriations;  they  failed  to  vote  342  times.115 

Governor  Stephens  had  the  deciding  vote,  however. 
He  cast  it  in  the  negative.  To  that  extent  he  put  his 
veto  on  revision  of  the  budget  upward. 

Of  the  total  of  $3,397,520  in  appropriations  thus 
vetoed  by  the  Governor,  -  $805,000  was  for  the  Uni- 
versity of  California. 


us  The   number   of  votes   cast   on   the   thirty-two  bills   by   the 
twenty-six  Assemblymen  who  voted  against  the  King  tax  bill  was 
as  follows: 

Yes    No  Absent 
Badaracco     .....  19 

Badham    ........  20 

Baker 
Beal 


1 
21 


Benton    .........  20 

Bishop    .........  20 

Bromley    .......  8 

Brooks    .........  17 

Burns    ..........  25 

Graves    .........  14 

Gray    ...........  26 

Green    ..........  11 

Hart    ...........  16 


12 
12 
23 
11 
10 
12 
22 
14 

7 
15 

6 
20 
16 


No  Absent 


Yes 

Hurley    .........  22  1  9 

Loucks    .........  21  1  10 

Lyons    ..........  9  0  23 

McCloskey   ......  24  0  8 

McGee    .........  25  0  1 

Merriam    .......  18  0  14 

Morris    .........  13  0  19 

Pedrotti    ........  15  0  17 

Keam    ..........  29  0  3 

Stevens    ........  13  0  19 

Warren    ........  24  1  7 

Weber    .........  13  0  19 

White    ..........  14  10  8 


342. 


Totals—  For  the  bills,   464;  against  the  bills,   26;  failed  to  vote, 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
DEFEAT  OF  THE  INDETERMINATE  FRANCHISE  Biu, 

The  Indeterminate  Franchise  bill,  defeated  at  the 
1919  session,  was  again  introduced  in  1921. 

This  measure  provided  that  every  right  and 
franchise  granted  under  it  and  every  franchise  which 
shall  be  granted  by  any  incorporated  city  or  town  or 
consolidated  city  and  county,  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Act,  should  be  indeterminate;  that  is  to  say, 
every  such  right  and  every  such  franchise  should 
endure  in  full  force  and  effect  until  the  same  with 
the  consent  of  said  Railroad  Commission,  should  be 
voluntarily  surrendered  or  abandoned  by  its  possessor, 
or  until  the  State  of  California  or  some  municipal 
or  public  corporation  duly  authorized  by  law  should 
purchase  by  voluntary  agreement  or  should  condemn 
all  property  actually  used  and  useful  in  the  exercise 
of  such  right  or  such  francise.116 

The  Assemblyman  who  introduced  this  measure  in 
1919,  Mr.  Sidney  Graves  of  Los  Angeles,  introduced 
it  in  1921.  This  re-introduction  was  not  unlocked  for. 
When  the  measure  had  been  defeated  at  the  1919 
session  it  was  well  understood  that  the  corporations 
interested  would  again  attempt  its  passage  in  1921. 
Indeed,  such  legislation  is  clearly  part  of  the  general 
plan  under  which  the  corporations  propose  to  deal  with 

lie  In    addition    to   providing   for  the   Indeterminate   Franchise, 
the  bill  repealed  several  sections  of  the  Civil  Code. 


Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill          161 

California.  They  failed  to  get  it  through  in  1919;  they 
failed  again  in  1921 ;  they  will  make  the  same  attempt 
in  1923,  and,  failing  then,  will  persist  through  other 
sessions. 

Those  opposing  the  measure,  legislators  and  citizens 
who  distinguish  between  the  development  and  ex- 
ploitation of  the  State's  resources,  held  that  the 
franchise  would  in  effect  be  perpetual.117  The  oppo- 
sition in  1921  took  the  same  course  as  in  1919. 

At  the  1919  session,  few  understood,  until  the  bill 
had  passed  the  Assembly,  just  what  its  provisions  meant. 
The  very  effective  support  back  of  it  had,  however, 
managed  to  get  it  out  of  committee  and  up  to  vote 
in  the  Lower  House.  The  vote  upon  it  came  at  mid- 
night after  a  hard  day.  Before  the  roll  was  called 
upon  it,  worn-out  Assemblymen  questioned  as  to  what 
it  meant  and  what  was  its  necessity,  but  the  opposition 

HT  The  argument  on  this  feature  of  the  bill  was  as  follows: 
"An  indeterminate  franchise  practically  means  a  perpetual  fran- 
chise, for  the  reason  that  if  a  municipality,  county,  or  State 
desires  to  take  over  a  public  utility  which  has  a  franchise  under 
the  provisions  of  this  bill,  it  can  only*  do  so  by  condemnation  or 
by  a  voluntary  sale  on  the  part  of  the  owners  of  the  franchise. 
The  amount  of  money  which  would  be  exacted  and  which  would 
probably  be  allowed  by  the  Railroad  Commission  or  the  courts, 
would  not  be  based  on  the  physical  value  of  the  operating  plant 
but  upon  the  amount  of  money  put  into  the  plant  from  the  time 
of  its  inception  to  the  time  of  the  proposed  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings. This  would  mean  that  the  price  would  be  prohibitive 
and  that  a  franchise  once  granted  under  such  conditions,  would 
be  perpetual.  Knowing  this,  the  corporations  would  be  absolutely 
masters  of  the  situation,  could  evade  the  legal  regulations  and 
obligations  placed  upon  them,  and  the  result  of  the  passage  of 
this  bill  would  be  that  we  would  have  the  public  utility  corpora- 
tions forever  saddled  upon  us,  and  they  would  be  harsh,  unyield- 
ing and  extortionate  masters.  If  the  Railroad  Commission  should 
support  the  corporations  then  we  would  have  absolutely  no  redress 
whatsoever.  We  could  be  unconscionably  robbed  and  our  rights 
violated  and  yet  we  would  be  powerless  to  remedy  the  condition. 
Under  the  determinate  franchise  plan  when  the  franchise  of  a 
corporation  has  expired,  or  is  about  to  expire,  we,  the  people, 
have  the  whip  hand  and  can  compel  the  corporations  to  grant  us 
at  least  a  small  iota  of  the  obligations  justly  due  us." 


1 62         Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill 

was  uninformed  and  unprepared  to  offer  effective  re- 
sistance. The  measure  was  rushed  through  by  a  vote 
of  53  to  21.118 

A  companion  measure,  which  had  been  introduced 
by  Assemblyman  Easton,  also  from  Los  Angeles  and 
an  associate  of  Mr.  Graves,  was  passed  by  practically 
the  same  vote. 

In  the  Senate,  however,  progressive  members  took 
the  position  that  the  measures  were  too  important  to 
be  put  through  without  better  understanding  of  them. 

"I  cannot  help  believing,"  said  Senator  Inman  in 
speaking  against  their  passage,  "that  the  rushing 
through  of  these  bills  is  done  with  a  purpose.  Had 
they  been  left  to  the  committee  in  the  regular  way,  they 
would  never  have  been  reported  out.  My  predecessors 
have  told  me  that  such  things  used  to  be  done  in  the 
old  days  of  corporation  domination,  but  this  is  my  first 
experience  with  it.  The  man  who  votes  'aye'  on  this 
measure,  in  my  judgment,  votes  for  the  most  vicious 
piece  of  legislation  that  has  come  before  this  Legisla- 
ture in  six  years." 

"I  have,"  said  Senator  Dennett,  "devoted  more  than 
two  hours  to  the  study  of  this  bill.  I  do  not  see  where 

us  The  vote  by  which  the  1919  Graves  Indeterminate  Fran- 
chise bill  passed  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Allen,  Ambrose,  Anderson,  Bada- 
racco,  Baker,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Browne,  M.  B.;  Bruck,  Calahan, 
Carter,  Easton,  Eksward,  Fleming,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Goetting, 
Graves,  Greene,  Hawes,  Hilton,  Hughes,  Hurley,  Johnston,  Ken- 
ney,  Knight,  Lamb,  Lewis,  Lindley,  Lynch,  Madison,  Manning, 
Mathews,  McColgan,  McCray,  Merriam,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison, 
Odale,  Prendergast,  Ream,  Roberts,  Rose,  Rosenshine,  Saylor, 
Stevens,  Vicini,  Warren,  Wendering,  White,  Windrem,  Wright, 
H.  W.,  63. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Argabrite,  Broughton,  Brown, 
J.  S. ;  deary,  Cummings,  Doran,  Dorris,  Eden,  Gray,  Kasch, 
Kline,  Locke,  McKeen,  Miller,  D.  W.;  Oakley,  Parker,  Pettit,  Pol- 
sley,  Strother,  Wickham,  and  Wright,  T.  M.,  21. 


Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill         163 

it  is  leading  us.  I  resent  the  bringing  of  a  bill  of  this 
importance  before  the  Senate  at  this  late  day." 

"Personally,"  said  Senator  Harris  of  Fresno,  "I 
would  rather  never  have  had  a  seat  in  this  Senate  than 
be  recorded  as  voting  for  this  bill.  'Indeterminate' 
might  as  well  be  called  'perpetual.'  If  we  pass  this 
bill  we  go  back  to  our  constituents  with  the  statement 
that  we  have  given  away  their  rights  in  perpetuity, 
and  that  the  only  way  they  can  get  those  rights  back 
is  to  buy  them  back." 

Senator  Sharkey  followed  Harris.  "No  Senator," 
said  Sharkey,  after  endorsing  all  that  Harris  had  said, 
"with  a  city  of  the  sixth  class  in  his  district  can  vote 
for  this  bill  with  a  clear  conscience." 

To  Senator  Frank  Benson  of  San  Jose,  more  than 
to  any  other  one  man,  is  accorded  the  credit  of  the 
defeat  of  the  1919  bills. 

Senator  Benson  was  credited  at  the  time  with 
changing  the  votes  of  at  least  two  San  Francisco 
Senators  whom  the  corporation  lobby  had  counted 
upon  to  vote  for  the  measures. 

"We  members  of  the  Legislature,"  said  Benson, 
"know  nothing  about  this  bill.  But,  in  this  Senate 
Chamber,  I  listened  to  an  attorney  for  a  public  utility 
company  who  did  know  all  about  it.  That  public 
utility  attorney  knew  everything  that  was  in  it;  he  had 
prepared  it,  not  after  two  hours  of  study,  but  after 
long  hours  and  days,  if  not  months  of  study.  He  drew 
it  just  as  he  wanted  it.  I  submit  that  we  have  no 
right  to  take  a  chance  with  this  sort  of  legislation.  If 
through  our  action,  the  public  utilities  get  the  best  of  it, 
somebody  is  getting  the  worst  of  it.  And  I  want  to  say 


164         Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill 

to  you  San  Francisco  Senators  who  talk  so  glibly  about 
the  poor  man,  that  the  poor  man  is  the  one  who  is 
getting  the  worst  of  it.  I  believe  that  any  Senator 
who  takes  a  chance  on  this  legislation  is  betraying  his 
constituents.  I  believe  that  this  is  the  most  serious 
moment  of  my  connection  with  this  Legislature;  not 
that  I  believe  that  these  bills  can  become  laws,  but 
because  I  fear  that  men  whom  I  have  grown  to  look 
upon  as  friends,  are  in  danger  of  doing  a  thing  in 
voting  for  these  bills  which  I  believe  will  be  a  lasting 
stain  upon  their  reputation." 

The  Senate  Journal  for  1919  shows  that  the  test 
vote  was  taken  on  the  Easton  bill.  It  was  defeated. 
Sixteen  Senators  voted  for  it;  twenty-four  voted  against 
it.119  The  Senate  Journal  shows  further  that  the  Graves 
bill,  without  being  brought  to  vote,  was  then  returned 
to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Utilities. 

In  this  way  ended  the  attempt  made  at  the  1919 
session  to  give  the  principle  of  the  indeterminate  (per- 
petual) franchise  expression  in  California  law. 

At  the   1921   session   the  lobby  which  had   worked 

ii»  The  vote  by  which  the  companion  bill  to  the  Graves  Inde- 
terminate 'Franchise  bill  was  defeated  in  the  Senate,  which  was 
the  vote  by  which  the  disposition  of  the  Graves  bill  was  decided 
was: 

For  the  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Breed,  Burnett,  Chamberlin, 
Gates,  Hart,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Lyon,  McDonald,  Purkitt,  Rominger, 
Sample,  Scott,  Shearer,  and  Tonkin,  16. 

Against  the  bill — Senators  Benson,  Boggs,  Brown,  Canepa,  Carr, 
F.  M. ;  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Crowley,  Dennett,  Duncan,  Evans,  Flaherty, 
Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King,  Nealon,  Otis,  Rigdon, 
Rush,  Sharkey,  Slater,  and  Thompson,  24. 

The  writer,  in  this  footnote  and  in  the  text,  follows  the  official 
Senate  Journal.  His  own  notes  indicate  that  it  was  the  Graves 
bill  A.  B.  1085,  1919  series,  itself  that  was  voted  upon  and  defeated, 
and  the  companion  of  the  Graves  bill  (A.  B.  1084),  which  was 
thereupon  sent  back  to  committee.  Such,  too,  is  the  recollection 
of  certain  Senators  who  had  awakened  to  the  importance  of  the 
Graves  measure. 


Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill          165 

for  the  defeat  of  the  King  bill  labored  for  the  passage 
of  the  Graves  bills.  Soon  stories  were  current  about  the 
capital  that  amendments  had  been  prepared  which 
met  the  objections  to  the  measures  raised  by  city 
attorneys  and  others.  When  the  bills  came  up  in 
the  Assembly  Committee  none  appeared  to  oppose 
them.  Supporters  were  present  in  force.  These  offered 
the  amendments  that  were  supposed  to  cure  all  de- 
fects. Adopting  these  amendments  the  committee  sent 
the  bill  back  to  the  Assembly  with  recommendation 
that  it  be  passed.  The  Assembly  did  precisely  what  it 
had  done  two  years  before,  passed  the  bill  with  a  good 
margin  above  the  necessary  majority.120 

By  the  time  the  bill  reached  the  Senate,  opposition 
developed  just  as  it  had  at  the  1919  session.  This 
opposition  found  expression,  when  the  bills  came  up  for 
consideration  in  the  Senate  Public  Utilities  Committee. 

H.  A.  Mason,  speaking  for  the  League  of  California 
Municipalities,  stated  that  his  organization  was  un- 
alterably opposed  not  only  to  the  bills  but  to  the 
principle  of  the  Indeterminate  Franchise.  T.  E.  Zant, 
representing  the  San  Francisco  Taxpayers'  Association, 
took  the  same  ground.  Former  State  Senator  William 
Kehoe  pointed  out  the  difference  between  the  original 

120  The  vote  by  which  the  1921  Assembly  passed  the  Graves 
Indeterminate  Franchise  bill  was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal, 
Benton,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Burns,  Christian,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Eks- 
ward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart,  Hawes,  Heck, 
Horn  blower,  Hurley,  Jones,  G.  L,;  Lee,  G.  W.;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis, 
Loucks,  Lyons,  Manning,  Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell,  McGee, 
McPherson,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parkinson,  Pedrotti,  Pren- 
dergast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Spalding,  White,  and  Wln- 
drem,  46. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Bernard,  Broughton,  Cleary, 
Heisinger,  Hume,  Long,  McKeen,  Parker,  Saylor,  Spence,  Weber, 
Webster,  Wendering,  West,  Wright,  H.  W.,  15. 


1 66         Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill 

policy  of  the  indeterminate  franchise,  and  that  which 
found  expression  in  the  bills. 

"The  original  indeterminate  franchise,"  said  Kehoe, 
"could  be  terminated  within  a  certain  period  of  time, 
but  the  bills  before  the  committee  provide  not  for 
indeterminate  franchises,  but  for  perpetual  franchises. 
If  the  public  utility  corporations  get  these  perpetual 
franchises,  the  longer  the  time  runs  the  more  the 
People  will  have  to  pay  to  get  public  ownership.  The 
larger  they  become,  the  more  value  they  assume,  and 
less  will  be  the  chance  for  the  public  to  take  them 
over.  It  is  not  up  to  us  of  the  present  generation  to 
say  posterity  shall  be  tied  up  in  this  way.  The  cor- 
porations are  not  here  because  they  expect  the  People 
will  be  given  an  opportunity,  under  this  plan,  to  attain 
public  ownership.  They  are  here  to  get  a  permanent 
hold.  These  are  vicious  measures." 

The  committeemen  present,  it  developed,  stood  six 
to  three  against  the  bills,  as  follows: 

For  bills — Senators  Burnett,  Lyon,  and  Yonkin. 

Against  the  bills — Senators  Carr,  W.  J.,  Inman, 
Johnson,  Dennett,  Harris,  and  Sharkey. 

When  the  advocates  for  the  bills  found  they  could 
not  get  a  favorable  recommendation,  they  made  the 
plea  that  the  measures  be  sent  back  to  the  Senate 
without  recommendation.  Harris  and  Sharkey  finally 
joined  with  Burnett,  Lyon,  and  Yonkin,  and  the  five, 
against  the  votes  of  Carr,  Inman,  Johnson,  and  Dennet, 
finally  took  that  action. 

The  corporation  lobby  immediately  redoubled  its 
efforts  to  secure  favorable  action  from  the  Senate.  But 


Defeat  of  the  Franchise  Bill          167 

here  they  failed.  They  could  not  muster  the  required 
twenty-one  affirmative  votes.  Wiser  than  they  had  been 
two  years  before,  they  did  not  permit  either  bill  to 
come  to  vote.  Both  measures  were  eventually  stricken 
from  the  file. 

But  the  fight  is  not  over.  The  program  of  the 
corporations  calls  for  the  forcing  of  the  principle  of 
what  amounts  to  the  perpetual  franchise  upon  the 
State.  The  corporations  failed  to  do  this  at  the  1919 
session;  they  failed  at  the  1921  session.  But  they  will 
be  on  hand  with  their  bill  again  at  the  1923  session, 
and  again  at  the  1925  session  if  they  fail  in  1923,  until 
eventually,  unless  the  public  continue  alert,  they  will 
elect  a  complacent  Legislature  which  will  put  their 
program  through. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  JOHNSON   POWER  DEVELOPMENT  BILL 

While  the  representatives  of  the  public  utility  cor- 
porations were  laboring  for  the  passage  of  the  Graves 
Indeterminate  Franchise  bill,  they  were  quite  as  actively 
opposing  the  so-called  Johnson  Power  Development 
bill.121 

This  measure  provided  the  machinery  by  which 
counties,  municipalities,  or  districts,  could  unite  for  the 
development  of  hydro-electric  power.  The  framers  of 
the  measure  recognized  that  power  development  projects 
are  often  too  large  for  a  single  community  to  under- 
take, but  may  be  very  satisfactorily  handled  by  a  group 
of  communities.  The  extravagance  and  expensive 
financing  of  private  corporation  development  have  been 
shown  in  previous  chapters,  and  need  not  be  dwelt 
upon  here.  The  object  of  the  framers  of  the  Johnson 
bill  was  to  provide  a  way  for  the  people  of  Cali- 
fornia to  escape  such  extravagance.  It  was  the  first 
move  in  that  direction  to  find  expression  in  a  proposed 
Act  of  the  Legislature.  As  a  forerunner  of  such  legis- 
lation, the  Johnson  bill  was  one  of  the  most  important 
measures  ever  introduced  in  the  Legislature  of 
California. 

The  Graves  Indeterminate  Franchise  bill  considered 

121  The  measure  had  been  drawn  by  representatives  of  the 
League  of  California  Municipalities.  It  was  introduced  by  Senator 
M.  B.  Johnson  of  San  Mateo  County,  and  known  as  Senate  Bill  397. 


The  Power  Development  Bill         169 

in  the  last  chapter,  taken  with  the  Johnson  Power 
Development  measure,  illustrated  very  well  the  two 
policies  for  hydro-electric  development  which  are  fast 
coming  into  conflict  not  only  in  California,  but  through- 
out the  continent. 

The  Graves  bills,  in  effect,  gave  the  power  com- 
panies perpetual  rights.  The  argument  was  even  heard 
about  the  lobbies  that  without  such  powers  it  was  im- 
practical for  private  corporations  to  finance  the  costly 
power  development  plans  which  are  now  proposed  in 
California. 

The  Johnson  bill,  on  the  other  hand,  provided  the 
machinery  by  which  the  public  could  sweep  the  waste 
and  extravagance  of  private  corporation  development 
aside,  and  substitute  for  it  the  tried-out  Ontario  plan 122 
of  public  development  of  power  on  the  basis  of  sale  at 
cost  to  the  consumer. 

The  same  motives  which  prompted  the  public  utility 
corporations  to  oppose  the  Johnson  bill  induced  their 
support  of  the  Graves  bill. 

The  Johnson  bill  was  referred  to  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Governmental  Efficiency,  of  which  W.  J. 
Carr  of  Pasadena,  associate  of  Francis  J.  Heney,  the 
graft  prosecutor,  was  chairman.  At  the  committee 
hearing  the  side  of  the  power  companies  was  presented 
by  Mr.  Gardner  Wood,  a  brilliant  young  man  who 

122  There  was  nothing  proposed  in  the  Johnson  bill  that  has 
not  been  tried  out  elsewhere  and  successfully.  Under  the  Ontario 
plan,  which  the  framers  of  the  bill  followed,  two  hundred  cities  and 
rural  districts  of  Ontario,  Canada,  have  escaped  from  the  toll- 
exacting  methods  of  privately  owned  public  utilities,  brought  rates 
down  as  low  as  2  cents  a  kilowatt  hour  for  domestic  lighting,  and 
in  eight  years  saved  consumers  $20,000,000  in  their  bills  for  electric 
energy. 


170        The  Power  Development  Bill 

had  become  active  in  California  politics  during  the  1920 
campaign.128 

Mr.  Wood's  presentation  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  convincing.  At  any  rate,  the  Committee  sent  the 
bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  the  recommendation  that 
it  be  passed. 

But  its  opponents  did  not  permit  the  measure  to  go 
to  vote  without  a  struggle.  Senator  F.  A.  Arbuckle 
of  Ventura,  on  the  day  of  its  return  to  the  Senate, 
moved  its  reference  to  the  Senate  Public  Utilities  Com- 
mittee for  further  consideration.  In  this  connection,  it 
may  be  said,  Senator  Arbuckle  was  the  only  member 
of  the  Committee  on  Governmental  Efficiency,  the  com- 
mittee which  had  recommended  that  the  Johnson  bill 
be  passed,  who  had  voted  against  the  King  Tax 
Equalization  bill. 

Johnson  opposed  Arbuckle's  motion  vigorously.  He 
denounced  the  move  as  "simply  an  attempt  to  delay 
the  bill  with  a  view  to  kill  it." 

Senator  Arbuckle  replied  that  the  bill  was  revolu- 
tionary in  character  and  should  not  be  rushed.  "The 
power  companies,"  he  added,  "want  to  be  heard  on 
'this  bill." 

"Mr.  Gardner  Wood,  who  said  he  represented  the 
power  companies,"  Johnson  shot  back,  "was  before 
the  Governmental  Efficiency  Committee  yesterday  and 
after  stating  his  objections  declared  he  did  not  care 
for  further  hearing." 

123  Gardner  Wood,  during  the  1921  session,  was  associated  with 
Al  Bartlett,  former  Assemblyman,  who  appeared  at  Sacramento 
in  the  interest  of  certain  power  companies.  Mr.  Wood  was  one 
of  the  organizers  and  prime  movers  in  the  so-called  "Young  Men's 
Republican  Clubs,"  which  will  no  doubt  play  an  important  part  in 
the  1922  campaign. 


The  Power  Development  Bill         171 

"Mr.  Wood,"  replied  Arbuckle,  "does  not  represent 
all  the  power  companies.  Mr.  Al.  Bartlett,  who  does 
represent  them,  has  requested  a  public  hearing  on  the 
measure." 

This  naive  admission  fixed  the  source  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  bill. 

Senator  Chamberlin  of  Los  Angeles  backed  up 
Arbuckle,  asserting  that  it  was  no  more  than  fair  for 
the  Senate  to  consider  Mr.  Bartlett's  request. 

"Isn't  Mr.  Wood  from  Bartlett's  office?"  demanded 
Inman. 

"Yes,"  responded  Chamberlin,  "I  believe  he  is 
Bartlett's  office  boy.  But  I  don't  think  we  should  seek 
to  tie  up  the  public  service  corporations  on  an  office 
boy's  action." 

But  in  spite  of  this  move  against  the  bill,  the  Senate 
refused  to  delay  it  further,  and  by  a  vote  of  14  to 
19  defeated  Arbuckle's  motion.124 

When  the  bill  came  up  for  final  vote,  a  fortnight 
later,  opposition  to  its  passage  had  apparently  ended. 
Chamberlin  was  the  only  member  who  voted  against 
it.125  But  the  power  companies  had  not  withdrawn 

124  The  vote  by  which   the  Senate  rejected  Arbuckle's  motion 
was: 

For  the  motion  and  for  delay — Senators  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Bur- 
nett, Chamberlin,  Gates,  Godsil,  Hart,  Irwin,  Lyon,  McDonald, 
Purkitt,  Rominger,  Sample,  and  Tonkin,  14. 

Against  the  motion  and  against  delay — Senators  Allen,  Boggs, 
Carr,  F.  M.;  Carr,  W.  J.;  Crowley,  Duncan,  Eden,  Flaherty,  Harris, 
Ingram,  Inman,  Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Nelson,  Rigdon,  Scott, 
Sharkey,  and  Slater,  19. 

125  The    vote    by   which    the    Johnson    power    bill    passed    the 
Senate  was: 

-For  the  bill — Senators  Allen,  Boggs,  Breed,  Canepa,  Carr,  F.  M.; 
Crowley,   Dennett,   Duncan,    Eden,  Flaherty,   Godsil,   Harris,   Hart, 
Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Osborne, 
Otis,   Rigdon,   Rush,   Sample,    Scott,   Shearer,   and  Slater,   28. 
Against  the  bill — Senator  Chamberlin,  1. 


172         The  Power  Development  Bill 

opposition.126  They  proposed  to  defeat  the  measure  in 
the  Assembly,  and  did. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Government  Efficiency 
and  Economy  gave  the  measure  the  same  treatment 
which  the  Senate  Public  Morals  Committee  of  the 
old  vice-corporation  days  used  to  accord  measures  that 
were  adverse  to  gambling  and  allied  interests;  that  is 
to  say,  refused  to  act  on  the  bill  one  way  or  the  other. 

Assemblyman  Parker  accordingly  led  a  fight  to 
compel  the  Committee  to  return  the  measure  to  the 
Assembly.  Forty-one  votes  were  required  for  this. 
The  bill's  supporters  managed  to  secure  thirty-six,127 
five  less  than  the  number  necessary. 

Two  days  later  Mr.  Parker  made  a  second  attempt 
to  get  the  bill  back  for  consideration.  This  time 128 


126  There  was  no  concealment  of  this  purpose.     Al  Bartlett,  on 
the  day  after  the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  was  quoted  in  the  public 
prints   as  saying:     "I  do  not  think  the  Johnson  bill   is  practical. 
I  can  see  no  way  by  which  its  provisions  can   be  financed.     We 
will  ask  a  hearing  in  the  Assembly  committee  to  make  a  fight  in 
the  lower  House." 

127  The    vote    by    which    the    first    attempt    to    withdraw    the 
Johnson   power  bill  from  committee  was: 

For  withdrawal  and  for  the  bill  —  Assemblymen  Bernard, 
Broughton,  Christian,  Cleary,  Cleveland,  Crittenden,  Cummings, 
Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones,  I.;  Lewis, 
Lyons,  Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell,  Merriam,  Morris,  Parker, 
Parkinson,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Say- 
lor,  Schmidt,  Smith,  Spalding,  Webster,  West,  Windrem,  Wright, 
H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  36. 

Against  withdrawing  and  against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Ander- 
son, Badaracco,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley, 
Brooks,  Burns,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider, 
Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hart,  Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley, 
Jones,  G.  L.;  Kline,  Lee,  G.  W.;  Long,  Loucks,  Manning,  McGee, 
McKeen,  McPherson,  Morrison,  Pettis,  Ream,  Spence,  Stevens, 
Warren,  Weber,  and  Wendering,  40. 

128  The   vote   by  which   the    second   attempt   to   withdraw   the 
Johnson  power  bill  from  committee  was  lost  was: 

For  withdrawal  and  for  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Ber- 
nard, Broughton,  Christian,  Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Critten- 
den, Cummings,  Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Johnston, 


The  Power  Development  Bill          173 

thirty-seven  affirmative  votes  were  secured,  four  less 
than  the  required  number. 

After  this  defeat  the  bill's  supporters  made  no 
further  attempt  to  get  it  out  of  committee. 

In  this  way  was  the  Johnson  Power  Development 
bill  defeated. 

Twelve  years  before,  at  the  1909  session,  legislation 
no  more  advanced  for  the  times  than  was  the  Johnson 
Power  bill  for  1921  was  defeated  on  margins  as  narrow. 
Two  years  later,  at  the  1911  session,  all  progressive 
measures  defeated  in  1909  were  enacted  into  law.129 

That  California  will  not  much  longer  tolerate  the 
present  exploitation  of  her  hydro-electric  power  re- 
sources goes  without  saying. 

Jones,  I.;  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell, 
McKeen,  Parker,  Parkinson,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Ross, 
Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding,  Spence,  Weber,  Webster,  West,  Windrem, 
Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M..  37. 

Against  withdrawal  and  against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Bada- 
racco,  Badham,  Baker,  Benton,  Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Burns, 
Coombs,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Graves,  Gray,  Hart,  Hawes, 
Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Kline,  Lee,  G.  W.; 
Loucks,  Lyons,  McGee,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Ream,  Rosen- 
shine,  Stevens,  Warren,  Wondering,  and,  White,  34. 

129  See  Stories  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909  and  1911. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
THE  ATTACKS  ON  THE  INITIATIVE 

The  ten  years'  opposition  to  direct  legislation,  which 
had  begun  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  initia- 
tive, referendum,  and  recall  amendments  to  the  State 
Constitution  in  1911,  found  expression  at  the  1921 
session  in  the  introduction  of  four  constitutional  amend- 
ments, one  proposed  law  to  limit  the  use  of  the 
initiative,  and  a  Senate  resolution  calling  for  an  in- 
vestigation of  the  application  of  the  principle  of  the 
initiative  in  other  States.  All  were  defeated,  the  Senate 
resolution  being  the  only  one  of  the  six  propositions  to 
come  to  a  vote.  In  defeating  these  measures  the 
Legislature,  as  had  been  done  at  other  sessions,  upheld 
the  decision  repeatedly  expressed  by  State-wide  vote 
that  the  people  of  California  are  well  satisfied  with 
their  experience  with  direct  legislation,  and  overwhelm- 
ingly opposed  to  anything  that  savors  of  limitation  of 
its  use. 

California  labored  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  to 
gain  the  initiative;  for  ten  years  the  State  has  fought 
reactionary,  vice  and  other  exploiting  interests  to 
hold  it.  There  are  indications  that  the  fight  is  to  go 
on.  But  gradually,  in  spite  of  this  opposition,  the 
initiative  is  becoming  as  firmly  fixed  in  our  govern- 
mental plan  as  suffrage,  or  trial  by  jury. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  175 

A  brief  outline  of  the  attacks  on  the  initiative 
during  the  last  ten  years  will  enable  us  to  appreciate 
the  significance  of  the  attempts  made  at  Sacramento  at 
the  1921  session  to  limit  its  application. 

Under  the  thirty  years'  control  of  State  affairs  by 
the  corporation-vice-controlled  political  organization, 
popularly  known  as  the  "Southern  Pacific  Machine/'  13° 
which  followed  the  adoption  of  the  State  Constitution 
of  1879,  the  dominating  political  group,  recognizing 
that  under  the  initiative  their  control  would  be  broken, 
cleverly  opposed  all  forms  of  direct  legislation,  de- 
nouncing all  who  advocated  it  as  dreamers  and 
"anarchists."  Nevertheless,  direct  legislation  gained  in 
popular  favor,  until  by  1908  there  was  strong  demand 
that  amendments  to  the  State  Constitution  providing 
for  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall  be  submitted 
to  the  electors. 

The  1908  Democratic  State  Convention  adopted  a 
plank  pledging  the  party  to  such  submission,  while 
civic  organizations  throughout  the  State  unqualifiedly 
endorsed  the  principle.  Nevertheless  the  Democratic 
leaders  in  the  1909  Senate  joined  the  various  interests 
that  opposed  the  initiative  amendment  that  was  pro- 


iso  So-called  because  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company 
was  the  most  important  corporation  concerned,  and  dominated  the 
organization.  Affiliated  with  it  were  most  of  the  other  public 
service  corporations  of  the  State,  and  the  gambling,  liquor-dealing 
and  prostitution-exploiting  groups.  During  this  regime,  the  prin- 
cipal banks  of  the  State  camei  openly  to  the  defense  of  the  most 
vicious  forms  of  gambling;  trust  companies  invested  trust  funds 
in  assignation  houses;  as  part  of  their  loot  at  Sacramento  the 
vice  interests  were  permitted  to  dominate  Committees  on  Public 
Morals,  while  the  various)  vice  interests  never  failed  the  corpora- 
tions at  the  polls  or  in  legislative  bodies.  The  last  Legislature  to 
meet  under  this  system  was  that  of  the  Session  of  1909.  See 
"Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909." 


176 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative 


posed  at  that  session.  The  efforts  of  its  proponents 
to  have  it  put  to  popular  vote  failed.131 

The  initiative  was  but  one  of  the  popularly 
demanded  reforms  defeated  in  the  1909  Legislature. 
Out  of  these  defeats,  and  the  accompanying  flounting 
of  public  opinion,  came  the  political  uprising  which  at 
the  1910  primaries  led  to  the  complete  overthrow  of 
the  so-called  "Southern  Pacific  Machine,"  and  the 
nomination,  and  later  election,  of  Hiram  W.  Johnson, 
Governor,  and  a  Legislature  thoroughly  committed  to 
progressive  policies. 

Chief  among  these  policies  were  that  of  the  right 
of  the  people  to  initiate  laws  independent  of  the  legis- 
lative branch  of  government,  and  that  of  giving  the 
people  a  check  on  laws  which  the  legislative  branch 
might  enact — the  referendum.  In  accordance  with  the 
popular  demand,  both  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
State  conventions  in  1910  adopted  planks  calling  for 
submission  to  popular  vote  of  initiative  and  referen- 
dum amendments  to  the  State  Constitution.132 


131  For   complete   account  of   the   defeat   of  the   1909   Initiative 
Amendment,    see    "Story    of    the    California   Legislature    of    1909." 
The  chapter  on  the  Initiative  closes  with  the  following-  paragraph: 
"Senators  Curtin  and  Miller,  in  spite  of  their  party's  endorsement 
of   the   policy,    expressed    themselves   as    'scandalized'    at   such    an 
idea   as    the   Initiative.      But   as   good   men   as    Miller   and   Curtin 
were  scandalized  at  the  idea  of  abolition  of  slavery  in  1860,  only 
to  become  the  most  earnest  supporters  of  the  Emancipation  Proc- 
lamation   three    years    later.      Reform    waves,     like    the    Atlantic 
Ocean,  are  not  kept  back  with  brooms — or  Gus  Hartmans."     Two 
years  later,   in   1911,   the   Legislature*  by  a  vote  of  106   to   1   sub- 
mitted the  Initiative  and  Referendum  to  the  electors.     The  electors 
by  a  vote  of  3  to  1  adopted  both. 

132  The  Republican  platform  called  for  "The  submission  to  the 
people  of   constitutional  amendments   providing  for  direct  legisla- 
tion in  the  State  and  in  the  county  and  local  governments,  through 
the   initiative,    the   referendum    and    the  recall."     The   Democratic 
platform  called  for  "The  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  in  State 
and  local  governments." 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  177 

Governor  Johnson,  in  his  inaugural  address,  urged 
upon  the  Legislature  that  it  could  best  assist  the  people 
to  arm  themselves  against  such  organizations  of  vice 
and  greed  as  the  "machine"  which  they  had  overthrown, 
by  adopting  the  initiative  and  referendum.133  The  Leg- 
islature with  but  one  dissenting  vote,  that  of  Senator 
Leroy  A.  Wright  of  San  Diego,  adopted  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  to  that  end.  The  electors  by  a  vote 
of  168,744  to  52,093  endorsed  the  Legislature's  action. 
Thus  was  the  safeguard  of  initiative  and  referendum 
reserved  to  the  people  of  California.133a 

But  with  the  weapons  of  initiative  and  referendum 
in  their  hands  the  people  temporarily  had  little  need 
of  them.  With  the  cleaning  out  of  the  State  govern- 

133  "When,"  said  Governor  Johnson,  "with  your  assistance, 
California's  government  shall  be  composed  only  of  those  who 
recognize  one  sovereign  and  master,  the  people,  then  is  presented 
to  us  the  question  of,  How1  best  can  we  arm  the  people  to  pro- 
tect themselves  hereafter?  If  we  can  give  to  the  people  the 
means  by  which  they  may  accomplish  such  other  reforms  as  they 
desire,  the  means  as  well  by  which  they  may  prevent  the  misuse 
of  the  power  temporarily  centralized  in  the  Legislature  and  an 
admonitory  and  precautionary  measure  which  will  ever  be  present 
before  weak  officials  and  the  existence  of  which,  will  prevent  the 
necessity  for  its  use,  then  all  that  lies  in  our  power  will  have 
been  done  in  the  direction  of  safeguarding  the  future  and  for  the 
perpetuation  of  the  theory  upon  which  we  ourselves  shall  conduct 
this  government.  This  means  for  accomplishing  other  reforms 
has  been  designated  the  'initiative  and  the  referendum,'  and  the 
precautionary  measure  by  which  a  recalcitrant  official  can  be 
removed  is  designated  the  'recall.'  And  while  I  do  not  by  any 
means  believe  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the  recall  are 
the  panacea  for  all  our  political  ills,  yet  they  do  erive  to  the  elec- 
torate the  power  of  action  when  desired,  and  they  do  place  in 
the  hands  of  the  people  the  means  by  which  they  may  protect 
themselves.  I  recommend  to  you,  therefore,  and  I  most  strongly 
urge,  that  the  first  step  in  our  design  to  preserve  and  perpetuate 
popular  government  shall  be  the  adoption  of  the  initiative,  the 
referendum,  and  the  recall.  I  recognize  that  this  must  be  accom- 
plished, so  far  as  the  State  is  concerned,  by  constitutional  amend- 
ment. But  I  hope  that  at  the  earliest  possible  date  the  amend- 
ments may  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  that  you  take  the 
steps  necessary  for  that  purpose.  I  will  not  here  go  into  detail 
as  to  the  proposed  measures." 

i33a  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,  Chapters 
VII,  VIII,  IX.  and  X. 


178  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

ment  of  vice-corporation  control,  the  people  secured  the 
advantage  of  a  representative  Legislature  in  sympathy 
with  their  purposes,  and  responsive  to  their  will. 
Legislators  who  met  the  public  demand  by  submitting 
the  question  of  adoption  of  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum to  popular  vote,  gave  favorable  consideration  to 
other  policies  which  the  people  had  been  long  demand- 
ing. Thus,  when  it  was  made  possible  for  the  people 
to  make  the  policy  of  the  initiative  part  of  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  State,  they  found  it  was  practical 
to  secure  through  the  Legislature  reforms  which  the 
machine-controlled  Legislature  had  failed  to  grant. 
Resort  to  the  initiative  was,  therefore,  unnecessary. 
With  such  Legislatures  as  had  sat  in  California  up  to 
1909,  the  public,  had  they  had  the  initiative,  would 
unquestionably  have  employed  it  to  correct  the  abuses 
of  the  election  laws,  to  curb  the  exploiting  corporations, 
to  give  State-provided  textbooks  to  public  school 
children,  to  outlaw  race-track  gambling,  to  establish 
the  direct  primary,  reforms  which  had  long  been 
Idemanded,  but  which  the  vice-corporation  interests  in 
control  of  the  Legislature  had  denied.  But  with  the 
weapon  of  the  initiative  the  public  found  the  Legis- 
lature by  practically  unanimous  vote  providing  for 
such  reforms.18*  This  was  particularly  true  of  the 
Legislatures  that  sat  in  1911,  and  1913;  not  quite  so 
true  of  the  Legislature  of  1915.  With  the  steady  gains 
of  the  old  vice-corporation  elements,  acting  under  new 
names,  and  not  infrequently  under  camouflage  of  public 
spiritedness  and  patriotism,  the  people  have  found  the 

iM  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911,  and  of  1913. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  179 

Legislature  less  responsive  to  their  will,  until,  at  the 
1921  session,  while  the  vice-corporation  interests  were 
not  quite  strong  enough  to  put  through  bad  legislation, 
they  could,  and  did,  block  good  legislation.  Measures 
thus  blocked  in  the  1921  Legislature  will,  by  means  of 
the  initiative,  be  given  place  on  the  1922  ballot.135 

While  the  good  citizenry  of  California  with  legisla- 
tive representation  responsive  to  its  will  had  little  need 
for  the  initiative  and  referendum  during  the  half  decade 
following  the  1910  overthrow  of  the  "machine,"  the 
vice-corporation  interests,  which  had  lost  control  of  the 
State  government,  resorted  to  both  initiative  and  refer- 
endum to  defeat  the  reforms  which  were  finding 
expression  in  law.  Thus,  we  find  the  gamblers  who  had 
for  a  decade  prior  to  191 1  controlled  public  morals  com- 
mittees of  the  Legislature,  resorting  to  the  initiative 
to  restore  race-track  gambling,  which  had  been  out- 
lawed by  the  Walker- Young  anti-gambling  law  of  1911, 
while  the  tenderloin  interests  employed  the  referendum 
in  an  effort  to  defeat  the  1913  Redlight  Abatement  Act. 
In  the  same  way  the  corporations  invoked  the  refer- 
endum against  such  measures  as  the  Water  Commission 
(Conservation)  and  the  Investment  Companies  (Blue 
Sky)  Acts  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  1913. 

But  a  lesson  in  democracy  was  in  store  for  the 
reactionary  interests.  Repeatedly  it  was  demonstrated 
that  they  could  not  control  the  vote  of  upwards  of  a 
million  American  citizens  as  they  had  controlled  the 
vote  of  a  Legislature  of  120  members.  They  could 

135  The  Water  and  Power  Act,  providing  for  State  development 
of  hydro-electric  power,  Is  a  good  example  of  this.  The  1921  Legis- 
lature defeated  such  legislation.  See  Chapter  XTV.  Public-spirited 
citizens  have  placed  this  measure  on  the  ballot  under  the  Initiative. 


180  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

invoke  the  initiative  to  put  a  bad  law  on  the  statute 
books,  and  did;  they  could  and  did  invoke  the  refer- 
endum to  defeat  good  laws  passed  by  Legislatures 
truly  representative  of  the  people.  But  they  could  not 
get  a  majority  of  the  people  to  vote  for  a  bad  law  or 
against  a  good  one.  The  vicious  pro-gambling  measure 
of  1912  was  defeated  with  a  majority  of  more  than 
200,000  against  it,  while  the  Redlight  Abatement 
measure,  the  Conservation  Act,  the  "Blue  Sky"  law, 
and  other  good  measures  which  had  been  put  to  the 
test  of  the  referendum,  were  upheld  at  the  polls  by 
substantial  majorities. 

On  the  other  hand,  where  the  exploiters  of  vice  and 
public  service  had  the  initiative  directed  against  them, 
they  found  themselves  unable  to  stand  against  aroused 
public  interest  and  the  educational  possibilities  of 
State-wide  campaigns.  Thus,  the  Anti-Prize  Fight  Act, 
which  had  by  narrow  margin  failed  of  passage  at  the 
1913  legislative  session,  placed  on  the  ballot  under  the 
initiative,  became  law  by  popular  vote  in  1914,  while 
the  State  majority  against  prohibition,  because  of  the 
campaigns  of  education  which  the  initiative  made 
possible,  fell  from  168,745  in  1914  to  101,561  in  1916 
and  30,845  in  1918.136 

Repeated  demonstration  that  the  State's  citizenry 
could  employ  the  machinery  of  direct  legislation  suc- 
cessfully against  the  vicious  and  exploiting  elements 
of  society,  while  every  attempt  to  employ  it  against 

186  As  a  direct  result  of  the  three  State-wide  educational  cam- 
paigns for  prohibition,  1914-1916-1918,  which  without  the  initiative 
could  not  have  been  made,  the  majority  of  the  1919  California 
Legislature,  pledged  to  national  prohibition,  ratified  the  Eighteenth 
Amendment. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  181 

the  State's  interests  failed,  has,  as  the  years  have 
passed,  increased  the  opposition  of  the  reactionaries 
who  would  restore  the  conditions  that  prevailed  prior  to 
the  overthrow  of  the  "Southern  Pacific  Machine"  in 
1910. 

From  the  day  of  their  defeat  at  the  primary  polls 
in  August,  1910,  the  reactionary  elements  began  their 
planning  to  get  back  into  power.  The  principal  barriers 
in  their  way  are  the  direct  primary,  the  referendum, 
the  recall,  the  initiative.  Of  the  four,  the  initiative  has 
been  found  to  be  the  most  important  arm  of  the  people 
against  vice,  special  privilege,  extortion,  and  the 
corruption  that  comes  from  the  political  combination 
of  the  three.  The  people  might  lose  all  the  others,  but 
so  long  as  they  retain  the  initiative  they  have  the  power 
to  regain  them  by  their  own  petition  and  own  vote, 
regardless  of  who  may  control  their  Legislature. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  reactionary 
forces'  most  aggressive  resistance  to  democracy  in 
California  has  found  expression  in  opposition  to  the 
initiative.  Their  campaign  has  been  to  discredit  the 
initiative,  to  limit  it,  to  increase  the  difficulties  of  its 
use,  until  it  shall  be  made  impractical.  The  objective 
of  most  of  their  attacks  has  been  to  limit  its  use  in 
some  particular.  If  the  people  could  be  denied  the  right 
to  initiate  laws  affecting  the  liquor  traffic,  or  prize- 
fighting, or  taxation,  such  limitation  could  and  would 
be  used  as  a  precedent  to  force  other  exemptions  until 
the  State  would  have  the  initiative  in  name  but  not  in 
fact.  To  that  end  repeated  attempts  have  been  made  to 
associate  the  initiative  in  the  public  mind  with  unpopu- 


1 82  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

lar  policies.  In  this  the  reactionaries  have  been  uni- 
formly unsuccessful. 

The  first  serious  attempt  to  limit  the  initiative  came 
at  the  general  election  in  1914,  three  years  after  its 
adoption. 

The  anti-liquor  forces  had  initiated  a  constitutional 
amendment  providing  for  State  prohibition.  Prohibition 
was  at  the  time  most  unpopular  in  California.  The 
alert  reactionary  element  thought  they  saw  in  this 
prohibition  amendment  opportunity  to  place  the  initial 
limitation  upon  the  initiative. 

They  joined  with  the  extreme  pro-liquor  groups 
in  putting  a  constitutional  amendment  on  the  ballot, 
which  provided  that  the  initiative,  on  all  issues  in- 
volving the  liquor  traffic,  should  be  suspended  for 
eight  years. 

The  votes  on  the  prohibition  amendment,  and  on 
the  proposal  to  suspend  the  use  of  the  initiative  for 
prohibition  measures  for  eight  years,  gave  the  re- 
actionaries their  first  startling  lesson  in  what  direct 
legislation  really  means. 

More  than  half  a  million  (524,781)  voters  cast 
their  ballots  against  prohibition;  only  355,394  voted  to 
prevent  initiation  of  prohibition  laws.  Prohibition  was 
defeated  with  a  majority  of  168,745  against  it;  the 
proposition  to  limit  the  initiative  on  prohibition  ques- 
tions was  defeated  by  a  majority  of  80,307.  The  people 
of  California  did  not,  in  1914,  want  prohibition;  they 
were  equally  opposed  to  giving  up  their  right  to  vote 
on  the  question  of  prohibition  whenever  they  might  see 
fit  so  to  do. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  183 

Failing  to  limit  the  initiative  by  direct  vote  of  the 
people,  the  opponents  of  the  principle  appealed  to  the 
Legislature.  When  the  1915  session  convened  several 
acts  and  constitutional  amendments  calculated  to  dis- 
courage the  use  of  the  initiative  were  introduced. 

Certain  abuses  had  developed  in  the  circulation  of 
direct  legislation  petitions.  That  these  abuses  should 
be  met  if  possible  was  recognized  by  the  friends  of  the 
initiative,137  but  they  did  not  propose  that,  on  the 
excuse  of  correcting  abuses,  the  initiative  should  be 
loaded  down  with  hampering  limitations  and  re- 
strictions. They  urged  that  instead  of  tinkering  with 
the  constitutional  provisions  governing  direct  legisla- 
tion, the  Legislature  should  clearly  define  the  crimes 
arising  from  its  fraudulent  application,  and  fix  definitely 
the  duty  of  prosecuting  officers  in  such  cases.  This 
policy  eventually  prevailed,  and  several  measures  pro- 
viding adequate  penalties  for  fraudulent  circulation  of 
petitions,  perjury  committed  in  connection  with  them, 

1ST  Governor  Johnson  in  his  1915  biennial  message  to  the  Legis- 
lature called  attention  to  these  abuses.  "It  would  be  idle  to 
deny,"  he  said,  "that  certain  abuses  (of  the  initiative,  referendum 
and  recall)  have  arisen  just  as  abuses  in  the  early  trial  of  new 
policies  ever  will  arise.  It  is  our  duty  to  remedy  those  abuses,  if 
possible,  and  therefore,  I  direct  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
solemn  acts  of  the  Legislature  have  been  held  up  and  presented 
to  the  people  by  referendum  upon  petitions  that  in  part,  at  least, 
were  fraudulent.  The  Fish  and  Game  bill  was  passed  by  the 
Legislature,  signed  by  the  Governor,  and  received  the  solemn  sanc- 
tion that  the  Constitution  requires  for  the  making  of  a  law.  A 
referendum  petition  was  presented  against  this  bill,  part  of  which 
was  founded  upon  rank  forgery.  The  referendum  of  the  Redlight 
Abatement  bill  was  in  part  composed  of  forged  signatures.  It  is 
stated  that  the  first  (second)  recall  petition  presented  against 
Senator  Grant  in  San  Francisco  likewise  had  upon  it  many  forged 
signatures.  The  initiative  and  referendum  are  the  very  highest 
prerogatives  of  the  people.  To  permit  their  use  through  fraud  or 
forgery  is  to  pollute  at  its  very  source  our  government.  So  scan- 
dalous were  the  frauds  upon  the  referendum  petitions,  that  some 
months  ago  I  asked  the  Attorney-General  to  investigate  them  and 
to  take  charge  of  cases  pending  in  San  Francisco." 


184  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

etc.,  became  laws.138  On  the  other  hand,  hampering 
measures,  such  as  Assembly  bill  16  (1915  series), 
which  tended  to  increase  the  difficulties  of  circulating 
direct  legislation  petitions,  were  defeated.  The  same 
action  was  taken  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment 32,  which,  had  it  been  adopted,  would  have 
eliminated  from  the  initiative  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution the  sections  under  which  hampering  restrictions 
on  the  initiative  by  legislative  enactment  are  virtually 
prohibited. 

Up  to  this  point,  the  1915  Legislature  consistently 
followed  the  policy  to  reject  all  limiting  measures. 
Departure  from  this  policy  was  taken,  however,  in  the 
case  of  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  22. 

This  measure  proposed  an  amendment  to  the 
initiative  provisions  of  the  State  Constitution  to  require 
a  two-thirds  vote  to  carry  any  initiated  measure  pro- 
posing a  bond  issue.  As  the  initiative  stood,  a  majority 
vote  only  was  required. 

This  move  against  majority  rule  attacked  the  initia- 
tive at  its  weakest  point.  For  years,  in  local  bond 
elections  in  California,  a  two-thirds  vote  had  been 
required  to  establish  a  bonded  indebtedness.  The 
public  had  been  educated  up  to  the  idea  that  to  carry 
bonds,  a  two-thirds  vote  was  necessary.  The  supporters 
of  the  proposed  change  urged  this  in  behalf  of  their 
measure,  and  were  successful.  Not  a  Senator  when  the 
measure  came  to  vote  voted  in  the  negative,  although 
the  measure  received  only  the  twenty-seven  votes  neces- 
sary in  the  Senate  for  its  passage.  Fifty-six  Assembly- 

iss  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1915,  Chapter  IX. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  185 

men  voted  for  it,  and  only  eight  against  it.139  With 
this  showing,  the  proposed  change  was  submitted  to  the 
people. 

And  the  people  voted  it  down,  showing  by  sub- 
stantial majority,  as  they  had  the  year  before  when 
the  question  of  restricting  the  use  of  the  initiative  on 
the  question  of  prohibition  had  been  submitted  to  them, 
that  they  opposed  any  change  in  the  initiative  which 
limits  or  hampers  free  expression  by  the  majority. 

The    opponents    of    democracy,140    during   the    year 

139  The   vote    by   which    Senate    Constitutional    Amendment    22 
(1915  series)  was  adopted  was: 

In  the  Senate — For  the  amendment — Anderson,  Ballard,  Beban, 
Benedict,  Blrdsall,  Butler,  Campbell,  Carr,  Chandler,  Cohn,  Crow- 
ley,  Finn,  Flaherty,  Flint,  Gerdes,  Irwin,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King, 
Luce,  Lyon,  Mott,  Shearer,  Slater,  Stuckenbruck,  Thompson,  and 
Wolfe,  27. 

Against  the  amendment — None. 

In  the  Assembly — For  the  amendment — Anderson,  Ashley,  Bart- 
lett,  Beck,  Benton,  Boude,  Brown,  Henry  Ward,  Brown,  M.  B.; 
Bruck,  Burke,  Canepa,  Chenoweth,  Conard,  Edwards,  L. ;  Edwards, 
R.  G.;  Ellis,  Encell,  Ferguson,  Fish,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Godsil,  Haw- 
son,  Hayes,  D.  R.;  Hayes,  J.  J. ;  Johnson,  Judson,  Kennedy,  Kerr, 
Kramer,  Long,  Lostutter,  Lyon,  McDonald,  J.  J. ;  McDonald,  W.  A. ; 
McKnight,  McPherson,  Meek,  Mouser,  Phelps,  Phillips,  Ream, 
Rigdon,  Ryan,  Salisbury,  Scott,  F.  C.;  Scott,  L.  D.;  Sharkey, 
Sisson,  Tabler,  Widenmann,  Wills,  Wishard,  Wright,  H.  W.; 
Wright,  T.  M.,  and  Young,  56. 

Against  the  amendment — Boyce,  Downing,  Harris,  Pettis,  Quinn, 
Schmitt,  Shartel,  and  Spengler,  8. 

140  The    expression    "opponents    of    democracy"    may    have    a 
curious  ring  to  those  who   have   heard  so  much   about  America's 
purpose  in  entering  the  World  War  "to  make  the  world  safe  for 
democracy."     Nevertheless,  important  groups  that  are  opposing  the 
initiative  now  openly  spread  propaganda  to  the  effect  that  America 
may  soon  be  fighting  "to  make  the  world  unsafe  for  democracy." 
The   so-called   Better  America  Federation,   whose  part  in   the  at- 
tempted defeat  of  the  King  tax  bill  has  already  been  considered, 
is,    for   example,    active    in    the    distribution   of   such    propaganda. 
The    "Better   America   Federation"    was    originally   known   as    the 
Commercial    Federation    of    California.      Recently,    it    changed    its 
name    without    change    of    directors    or   officers.      H.    (Harry)    M. 
Halderman  of  Los  Angeles,   president  of  the  Commercial  Federa- 
tion, went  right  on  as  president  of  the  Better  America  Federation. 
There  was  in  the  change  of  name  no  change  in  policies,  aims,  or 
purposes.     In  its  weekly  letter  No.  44  to  members,  under  date  of 
April  26,   1920,   signed  by  the  Commercial  Federation  of  California, 
by    H.    M.    Halderman,    President,    "the    Federation    recommends 
Leslie    M.    Shaw's    'Vanishing    Landmarks'    for    its    100    per    cent 
Americanism,"  and  announces  a  campaign  to  raise  $20,000  to  place 


1 86  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

following  the  defeat  of  the  proposal  that  a  two-thirds 
vote  should  be  required  for  the  adoption  of  an  initia- 
tive measure  providing  for  a  bond  issue,141  carried 
on  an  extraordinary  publicity  campaign  against  every- 
thing that  savored  of  direct  legislation.  As  always,  the 
attempt  was  made  to  associate  the  initiative  with 
unpopular  conditions  and  policies. 

the  book  in  the  hands  of  every  school  teacher  In  California.  Shaw 
was  formerly  Governor  of  Iowa.  The  quality  of  the  "100  per  cent 
Americanism"  which  the  Federation  recommends  and  would  force 
upon  California  school  teachers,  is,  of  course,  best  shown  by 
Governor  Shaw's  book  itself.  Governor  Shaw  is  no  lover  of  democ- 
racy, nor  of  those  important  instruments  of  democracy,  the  initia- 
tive, referendum  and  recall.  His  peculiar  views  are  set  forth  in 
"Vanishing  Landmarks."  On  page  53  he  demands,  "Why  do 
liberty-loving1  Americans  seek  to  divorce  the  word  'democracy, 
from  its  original  meaning  and  popularize  the  greatest  enemy  lib- 
erty has  ever  known?"  On  page  43,  Governor  Shaw  tells  us: 
"Legislating  by  initiative  or  by  referendum,  the  recall  of  judges, 
and  especially  the  recall  of  judicial  decisions,  come  dangerously 
near  constituting  a  democratic  form  of  government,  against  which 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  guarantees."  The  Governor 
opens  his  book  with,  "The  Fathers  created  a  republic  and  not  a 
democracy,"  and  concludes  his  first  chapter  with,  "Unless  we 
speedily  give  heed  we  shall  be  fighting  to  make  America  unsafe 
for  democracy.  Then  we  may  have  difficulty  in  explaining  that 
we  have  meant  all  these  years  a  very  different  thing  than  our 
language  has  expressed."  The  word  in  black  type  is  Governor 
Shaw's.  Governor  Shaw,  in  1920,  stumped  California,  as  the  princi- 
pal speaker  in  the  campaign  carried  on  in  the  futile  attempt  to 
shake  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  California  in  democracy  and 
direct  legislation. 

141  During  the  ten  years  that  the  initiative  has  been  in  force 
in  California,  but  one  issue  of  State  bonds  has  been  proposed 
under  it.  This  bond  issue  was  not  initiated  by  what  such  institu- 
tions as  the  Farmers  and  Merchants  National  Bank  of  Los  Angeles 
would  designate  by  the  mild  term  "mob  democracy"  (see  monthly 
financial  letter  of  that  bank,  July  15,  1916),  but  by  the  Regents 
of  the  University  of  California  to  carry  out  the  building  program 
of  that  institution.  In  its  wildest  flights  of  political  imagining, 
the  Farmers  and.  Merchants  National  Bank  of  Los  Angeles  would 
scarcely  refer  to  the  Regents  of  the  University  of  California  as 
representing  a  "mob  democracy."  Nevertheless,  the  Regents  very 
gladly  availed  themselves  of  that  instrument  of  democracy,  the 
initiative,  to  increase  the  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  State,  a 
thing  which  no  other  citizen  or  group  of  citizens  had  up  to  that 
time  so  much  as  suggested.  The  Bond  Act  initiated  by  the  Re- 
gents provided  for  a  bond  issue  of  $1,800,000.  It  carried  (1914  elec- 
tion) with  a  vote  of  413,020  for  it  to  239,332  against  it,  showing 
the  overwhelming  support  of  the  so-called  "mob"  for  the  measure. 
With  the  total  vote  cast  on  this  issue,  652,352,  under  the  two-thirds 
rule,  434,901  affirmative  votes  would  have  been  required  to  carry 
the  measure,  and  it  would  have  been  defeated  by  falling  more 
than  20,000  votes  short  of  two-thirds. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  187 

While  direct  legislation  is  popular,  for  example,  a 
high  tax  rate  is  not.  The  opponents  of  the  initiative, 
therefore,  abandoned  frontal  attacks  upon  it,  and  sought 
by  indirection  to  discredit  it  with  the  people,  by  boldly 
asserting  that  the  initiative  was  responsible  for  high 
taxes.  This  propaganda  took  many  forms,  from  the 
"whisper"  at  social  gatherings,  to  newspaper  "news 
items"  and  editorial  articles.  Most  significant  was  that 
which  came  from  certain  banks  and  trust  companies.142 

"Two  of  the  most  frightful  sources  of  public  ex- 
pense," says  the  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  National 
Bank  of  Los  Angeles,143  in  its  monthly  financial  letter 
for  June,  1916,  "are  the  initiative  and  the  referendum. 
Wipe  these  off  the  slate  as  a  starter  towards  economy! 
....  We  changed  our  government  in  the  twinkling  of 
an  eye  to  a  mob-democracy.  Its  workings  have  not  been 
successful." 

The  following  month  the  bank  in  its  financial  letter 
for  July  carried  this  idea  a  little  further.  "If,"  reads 
this  letter,  "you  honestly  desire  to  reduce  taxation,  use 
your  most  strenuous  efforts  to  do  away  with  the  direct 
primary,  the  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the  recall. 
They  are  useless  and  expensive  adjuncts  of  our  form  of 
government." 

As    a    result    of    this    opposition    to    the    initiative, 

142  See    report   on   Sources   of   Political   Corruptions,    issued   by 
San   Francisco  Board  of  Supervisors  in  1910,  where  a  trust  com- 
pany had   invested   trust   funds   in   a  five -story  assignation   house 
at    San    Francisco,    the   plans    for    this   dive    having    been    passed 
upon   by   the   officers   of   the    trust   company   prior   to    the    invest- 
ment  of  the   trust   funds. 

143  At  the  time   this  financial  letter  was  issued  June  15,   1916, 
the  officers  of  the  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  Bank  of  Los  Angeles 
were  Isaias  W.  Hellman,  President;  J.  A.  Graves,  Vice-president; 
f.  W.   Hellman  Jr.,   Vice-president.     This  is  the  same  Graves  who 
took  so  important  a  part  in  the  opposition  to  the  King  tax  bill. 


1 88  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

ranging  from  underworld  elements  that  found  direct 
legislation  a  menace  to  their  free  activities,  to  National 
Banks,  several  constitutional  amendments  to  limit  the 
initiative  were  introduced  at  the  1917  session  of  the 
Legislature. 

Assemblyman  Leo  R.  Friedman  of  San  Francisco 
proposed  what  he  termed  "a  counter  petition"  144  under 
which  after  8  per  cent  of  the  voters  had  petitioned 
to  put  a  measure  on  the  ballot,  the  opponents  of  the 
measure,  by  a  counter  petition  of  10  per  cent  of  the 
voters,  could  keep  the  proposed  law  off  the  ballot. 
Under  such  an  arrangement,  the  use  of  the  initiative 
could  have  been  blocked  by  one-tenth  of  the  voters  of 
the  State.  This  Friedman  measure,  after  being  re- 
peatedly amended,  was  sent  back  to  the  Committee  on 
Constitutional  Amendments.  The  Assembly  took  no 
further  action  upon  it. 

Although  it  did  not  come  to  a  vote,  Senate  Con- 
stitutional Amendment  No.  12,  introduced  by  Senator 
Arthur  H.  Breed  of  Alameda  County,  providing  that 
the  initiative  and  referendum  "shall  not  be  used  to 
enact  or  annul  any  law  providing  any  method  of 

144  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  17  (1917  series).  Mr. 
Friedman  was  elected  from  the  Thirty- third  Assembly  district, 
which  covers  the  so-called  uptown  and  downtown  tenderloins  of 
San  Francisco.  Mr.  •Friedman  also  proposed  the  same  counter- 
petition  limitation  for  Recall  elections  (Assembly  Constitutional 
Amendment  18).  This  measure  came  to  vote  and  was  defeated. 
Out  of  an  Assembly  of  80  members,/  only  14  voted  for  it.  They 
were  Assemblymen  Ashley,  Baker,  Bartlett,  Burke,  Calahan,  Eks- 
ward,  Farmer,  Godsil,  Goetting,  Hudson,  Madison,  Prendergast, 
Tarke,  and  Watson.  Mr.  Friedman  was  also  the  author  of  As- 
sembly Constitutional  Amendment  No.  54,  which  provided  "for  the 
formation  of  segregated  districts  within  which  prostitution  may 
be  licensed  and  permitted."  Needless  to  say,  Mr.  Friedman's  plan 
for  legalizing  prostitution  by  amendment  of  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  State  received  no  better  support  than  his  attempt  to  limit 
the  initiative. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  189 

assessment,  or  for  the  levy  of  any  tax  in  this  State," 
was  important,  inasmuch  as  it  was  the  first  serious 
attempt  made  to  influence  the  public  to  withdraw  the 
safeguard  of  the  initiative  from  issues  involving  taxa- 
tion on  the  ground  that  such  course  must  be  taken  "to 
save  the  State  from  the  Single  Tax." 

For  the  next  four  years,  this  was  to  be  the  principal 
basis  of  attack.  The  initiative  had  been  demonstrated 
to  be  popular;  Single  Tax  measures  had  repeatedly 
been  defeated  at  the  polls  by  large  majorities.  The 
opponents  of  the  initiative,  by  asking  the  public  to 
exclude  taxation  measures — notably  measures  providing 
,for  the  Single  Tax — from  popular  vote,  were  striking 
at  the  initiative  at  probably  its  least  popular  and,  there- 
fore, weakest  point. 

The  supporters  of  the  initiative  were  quick  to  see 
to  what  the  Breed  amendment  was  leading.  Through 
the  Direct  Legislation  League  they  called  the  attention 
of  the  members  of  the  Legislature  to  the  fact  that  the 
measure  struck  at  the  very  root  of  popular  self- 
government.145  After  this  exposure,  not  a  dozen  mem- 

145  The  League's  letter  to  Senator  Breed,  under  date  of  March 
23,  1917,  read:  "The  Direct  Legislation,  League  of  California  de- 
sires me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  facti  that  S.  CL  A.  No.  12 
takes  away  from  the  people  the  most  important  right  of  self- 
government  which  they  possess,  namely:  the  power  of  control 
over  taxation.  This  strikes  at  the  very  root  of  popular  self- 
government.  Practically  all  historic  struggles  for  liberty,  includ- 
ing the  English  Revolution,  the  French  Revolution,  and  our  own 
American  Revolution,  have  centered  about  the  question  of  the 
people's  control  over  taxation.  On  account  of  your  past  splendid 
record,  the  League  believes  that  in  this  instance  you  have  merely 
failed  to  realize  fully  the  great  consequences  that  such  an  amend- 
ment, if  adopted,  would  bring-  about.  We  know  that  you  are  not 
influenced  by  interested  motives,  and  that  you  are  absolutely 
honest/  in  supporting  it;  but  we  wish  to  say  that  if  the  amend- 
ment be  adopted  by  the  necessary  majority  in  both  Houses,  it 
will  be  overwhelmingly  defeated,  in  our  opinion,  at  the  polls, 
because  of  the  numerous  classes  of  citizens  who  oppose  any  cur- 
tailment of  the  powers  of  self-government.  The  Prohibitionists, 


190  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

bers  of  the  1917  Legislature  could  have  been  induced 
to  vote  for  Senator  Breed's  measure.  It  did  not  leave 
the  committee  to  which  it  had  been  referred.146 

During  the  two  years  which  followed  adjournment 
of  the  1917  Legislature,  the  campaign  against  the 
initiative  continued  from  the  same  quarters,  namely, 
at  one  extreme  from  the  underworld  that  saw  its 
sources  of  revenue  from  liquor  selling,  prostitution, 
and  prize-fighting  open  to  constant  popular  attack;  and, 
at  the  other  extreme,  from  the  so-called  special  interests 

the  Labor  people,  the  Socialists,  the  Single  Taxers,  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  Progressives,  who  do  not  belong  to  any  of  the 
above  classes,  the  Direct  Legislationists,  and  many  others,  will 
oppose  the  amendment  to  a  man.  We  sincerely  hope  that  you  will 
see  fit  to  withdraw  your  measure,  as  we  do  not  wish  to  be  com- 
pelled to  make  a  State-wide  fight  against  it,  which  would  be 
necessary  if  it  be  submitted.  There  are  so  many  other  important 
matters  that  deserve  our  attention  and  aid  that  we  do  not  wish 
to  diffuse  our  energies  unnecessarily.  Therefore,  we  hope  that 
you  will  withdraw  it  and  oppose  all  other  measures  which  may  be 
introduced  looking  towards  the  abridgement  of  any  of  the  powers 
which  the  people  now  exercise  by  reason  of  the  constitutional  pro- 
visions which  they  possess  in  the  initiative,  referendum,  and 
recall." 

146  Four  other  constitutional  amendments  to  limit  the  initiative 
were  introduced  at  the  1917  session.  None  of  them  was  adopted 
and  none  of  them  was  seriously  considered.  They  were  Assembly 
Constitutional  amendments  26  and  36  and  Senate  Constitutional 
amendments  5  and  35.  The  only  one  of  the  four  to  come  to  a 
vote  was  Assembly  amendment  26.  Of  the  80  members  of  the 
Assembly,  29  only  voted  for  it,  54  votes  being  required  for  its 
adoption.  The  29  who  voted  for  the  amendment  were:  Anderson, 
Arnerich,  Ashley,  Byrne,  Calahan,  Collins,  Edwards,  Eksward, 
Friedman,  Gebhart,  Gelder,  Goetting,  Green,  L.;  Greene,  C.  W.; 
Harris,  Hawes,  Hayes,  D.  R.;  Hayes,  J.  J. ;  Hilton,  Johnstone, 
J.  "W. ;  Kylberg,  McCray,  Madison,  Manning,  Marks,  Mathews, 
Morris,  Rose,  and  Vicini.  The  amendment  had  been  introduced  by 
Assemblyman  Gelder  of  Berkeley  and  provided:  "Hereafter  no 
bill,  act,  resolution  or  petition,  intended  to  be  enacted  into  law, 
or  amendment  to  this  constitution,  shall  be  presented  to  the 
voters  of  this  State  for  their  ratification,  approval  or  rejection, 
whether  the  same  be  the  initiative  or  otherwise,  nor  shall  the 
legislature  enact  any  general  law,  controlling,  regulating  or  pro- 
hibiting, the  selling,  dividing  or  giving  away  of  any  alcoholic, 
vinous  or  malt  liquors  or  admixtures  thereof  or  limiting  in  any- 
wise the  places  wherein  such  liquors  or  admixtures  thereof  shall 
or  may  be  sold,  divided  or  given  away,  or  in  anywise  affecting, 
regulating  or  controlling  the  general  business  of  selling,  such 
liquors  or  admixtures  thereof  throughout  this  State." 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  191 

intent  upon  cinching  their  monopolies  upon  the  various 
public  utilities  and  the  free  exploitation  thereof.  Neither 
group  could  feel  quite  secure,  so  long  as  the  people 
were  able,  independent  of  the  Legislature,  to  pass  laws 
and  amend  the  State  Constitution. 

The  opposition  from  the  so-called  special  interests 
crystallized  into  the  plan  which  had  its  beginning  in 
the  Breed  amendment  of  1917,  to  take  from  the  people 
their  power  to  initiate  measures  relating  to  taxation. 
The  anti-initiative  campaign  along  this  line  was  by 
this  time  being  conducted  by  the  so-called  "People's 
Anti-Single  Tax  League."  The  announced  purpose  of 
this  organization  was  to  protect  the  State  from  the 
advocates  of  the  Single  Tax.  The  organization's  con- 
tention was  that  unless  the  initiative  were  limited  on 
matters  affecting  taxation,  the  Single  Tax  would  con- 
stitute an  everthreatening  menace  to  the  State. 

But  before  settling  down  to  this  policy  the  People's 
Anti-Single  Tax  League's  attack  on  the  initiative  had 
been  on  a  broader  basis. 

Late  in  1917  the  organization  distributed  literature 
proposing  that  when  an  initiated  measure  "is  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  4  to  3  it  cannot  be  submitted  again  for 
eight  years;  when  defeated  by  a  vote  of  3  to  2,  it 
cannot  be  voted  on  again  for  twenty  years;  and  when 
defeated  by  a  vote  to  2  to  1,  it  is  settled  for  all  time"; 
that  is  to  say,  when  any  proposition  had  been  defeated 
by  a  two  to  one  vote  the  initiative  could  never  again 
be  invoked  to  present  it  to  the  people. 

Before  the  1919  Legislature  convened,  the  People's 
Anti-Single  Tax  League  had  settled  down  to  the 


192  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

policy  that  the  initiative  must  be  limited  in  matters 
affecting  taxation,  as  "protection  against  the  Single 
Tax." 

Here,  again,  the  opponents  of  the  initiative  set  up 
most  effective  opposition.  The  initiative  is  popular; 
Single  Tax  measures  on  the  other  hand  had  been 
defeated  repeatedly  by  overwhelming  majorities.  If 
the  label  "Single  Tax"  could  be  fastened  to  the 
initiative  it  would  be  discredited  with  a  large  per- 
centage of  the  voters  of  the  State.147  From  the  opening 
of  the  1919  Legislature  down  to  the  present  writing 
the  settled  policy  of  the  People's  Anti-Single  Tax 
League  and  other  opponents  of  the  initiative  has  been 
to  associate  the  Single  Tax  with  the  initiative.  In  this, 
as  the  sequel  will  show,  in  spite  of  its  well-financed 
propaganda,  the  anti-initiative  organization  has  met 
with  signal  failure. 

When  the  1919  Legislature  met,  the  two  groups 
opposing  the  initiative  lined  up  against  it  precisely  as 
they  had  done  two  years  before.148 

147  At   the   1916   election,   the  vote   for   the  single-tax   measure 
was   260,332,    while   the  vote  against   it  was   576,533.     At  the  1918 
election,  over  300,000  electors  were  kept  away  from  the  polls  be- 
cause of  the  influenza  epidemic  of   that   year.     The  vote   on  any 
measure   at   the    1918    election   is   therefore   only   suggestive.     The 
vote  for  the  single-tax  act  fell  to  118,088,  while  the  vote  against 
it  was  360,334,  more  than  3  to  1'  against  it. 

148  Before    the   1919    Session    of   the   Legislature    convened,    the 
ever-watchful   Direct   Legislation   League   fully   informed   itself  of 
the  plans  of  the  so-called  Anti-single  Tax  League.     Through  the 
president  of  the  Direct   Legislation  League,   Dr.   John  R.   Haynes 
of  Los  Angeles,  every  member  of  thet  Legislature  was  warned  as 
to  the  attack  that  was  contemplated  on  the  initiative.     The  fol- 
lowing is  a  copy  of  President  Haynes'  letter  to  the  members  of 
the    Legislature:     "The    Anti-single    Tax    League   has    drafted    an 
amendment   to   the   State   Constitution,    which   it   is   going   to  ask 
the    incoming   Legislature    to    submit    to    the    people    at    the    next 
general   election.      This    proposed   amendment   would    Increase   the 
percentage  of  signatures  required  for  initiative  petitions  in  meas- 
ures relating  to  taxation,  at  present  8  per  cent  of  the  votes  cast 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  193 

The  underworld  interests,  however,  found  them- 
selves with  a  new  grievance  and  a  new  issue. 

Ratification  of  the  Eighteenth  Amendment  had  re- 
moved prohibition  from  initiative  possibilities.  There 

for  all  candidates  for  Governor,  at  the  next  preceding  election 
to  25  per  cent.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  tell*  you  that  such 
a  proposal  is  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  popular  government. 
Its  advocates  point  out  that  the  increased  percentage  is  limited 
to  measures  affecting  taxation;  but  if  the  practice  of  tinkering 
with  our  constitutional  provisions  for  direct  legislation  is  once 
begun,  all  manner  of  fettering  restrictions  will  soon  be  brought 
forward,  and  presently  these  instruments  of  popular  government 
will  become  so  difficult  to  use  that  the  provisions  wilL  be  virtually 
null  and  void.  Further,  although  the  proposal  applies  only  to 
taxation,  all  students  of  government  recognize  the  fact  that  the 
power  to  tax  is  the  most  essential  function  of  government.  Almost 
every  revolution  in  history,  including  the  English  and  American 
revolutions,  originated  in  disputes  relating  to  this  very  question 
of  the  power  of  imposing  taxes.  To  take  away  the  power  of  the 
people  to  originate  measures  of  taxation  means  practically  to  take 
away  the  most  essential  of  their  powers  of  direct  self-government. 
Before  the  last  election,  72,000  signatures  were  required  on  initia- 
tive petitions.  The  number  of  electors  casting  their  ballots  at 
the  last  election  was  the  smallest  in  many  years,  due  to  a  combi- 
nation of  several  factors;  one  that  it  was  not  the  presidential 
election  year;  another,  that  the  epidemic  of  influenza  caused 
people  to  avoid  crowds;  and,  third,  the  fact  that  very  large  num- 
bers of  men  were  in  enlistment  camps  and  prevented  from  voting. 
On  account  of  this  small  vote,  the  number  required  on  initiative 
petitions  for  the  next  two  years  will  be  only  55,000.  After  that 
time,  however,  under  normal  conditions  and  considering  the  nat- 
ural increase  in  population,  the  number  of  signatures  required 
under  the  present  provisions  of  the  constitution  will  probably 
approximate  100,000.  So  that,  if  the  increase  proposed  in  matters 
of  taxation  should  be  incorporated  into  the  constitution,  it  would 
mean  that  in  a  few  years  at  least  a  quarter  of  a  million  signa- 
tures would  be  required  on  such  petitions.  Anyone  conversant 
with  public  affairs  understands  that  such  a  requirement  would 
make  the  use  of  the  initiative  absolutely  impossible,  excepting  in 
the  case  of  large  corporations  with  many  employes  and  plenty 
of  money.  I  did  not  favor  or  vote  for  the  Single  Tax  measure 
placed  on  the  last  ballot;  nevertheless,  I  believe  that  the  large 
landed  estates  in  California  must  ini  some  way  be  broken  up.  At 
present  they  are  contributing  little  or  nothing  to  the  urgent  need 
for  food  products  and  they  are  preventing  the  incoming  of  settlers 
who  would  make  those  landed  areas  their  homes.  It  may  be  that 
the  people  may  decide  to  put  on  the  ballot  some  scheme  of  grad- 
uated land  tax  such  as  is  in  use  in  Australia,  by  which  large 
holdings  pay  a  higher  rate  of  tax.  If  the  people  want  to  do  this, 
they  should  have  the  right.  The  Anti-single  Tax  League  origi- 
nally proposed  that  when  a  measure  placed  on  the  ballot  by  the 
initiative  was  defeated  by  a  certain  majority,  that  it  couldi  not  be 
placed  again  upon  the  ballot  by  the  same  percentage  of  signatures 
until  the  expiration  of  four  years,  an  earlier  circulation  requiring 
a  higher  percentage.  Now,  I  am  opposed  to  curbing  the  power 


194  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

was  not,  therefore,  any  attempt  made  to  limit  the 
initiative,  as  had  been  done  in  1917,  on  questions  affect- 
ing the  liquor  traffic.  Redlight  abatement  had  by  this 
time  become  the  settled  policy  of  the  State.  There  was 
therefore  no  move  to  safeguard  prostitution  against 
initiative  attack.  However,  the  people  had,  in  1914, 
through  the  initiative,  outlawed  prize-fighting.  With 
other  sources  of  revenue  cut  off,  underworld  interests 
had  begun  to  turn  to  prize-fighting  to  recoup  their 
losses.  But  the  initiative  law  of  1914  stood  in  the 
way.  Their  special  concern,  therefore,  was  to  have 
prize-fighting  made  immune  from  initiative  attack.  A 
constitutional  amendment  was  introduced  in  both  the 
Senate  and  Assembly  which  practically  nullified  the 
Initiative  Act  of  1914,  under  which  prize-fighting  had 
been  outlawed. 

The  opposition  of  the  interests  represented  by  the 
so-called  Anti-Single  Tax  League  took  the  form  of  a 
constitutional  amendment,149  introduced  by  Senator 
Egbert  J.  Gates  of  Los  Angeles. 

Senator  Gates  was  the  seat-mate  and  close  associate 
of  Senator  Breed,  who  two  years  before  had  intro- 

of  the  people  in  any  way  or  form;  but  the  proposal  just  mentioned 
is  certainly  much  fairer  than  the  one  they  are  now  promoting. 
I  hope  that  you  will  do  everything  you  can  to  prevent  the  sub- 
mission of  the  proposed  amendment.  I  realize  that  their  proposal 
could  never  carry  in  the  general  election;  but  it  would  prevent 
the  people  concentrating  their  attention  on  other  important  mat- 
ters, and  the  submission  would  be  hailed  by  Eastern  reactionary 
journals  as  an  evidence  that  California,  hitherto  the  leader  in  pro- 
gressive movements,  had  become  tired  of  direct  legislation,  and 
a  totally  false  impression  would  be  created,  which  would  not  be 
removed  by  the  defeat  of  the  proposal  by  the  people." 

149  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  5  (1919  Series).  The 
same  measure  was  introduced  in  the  Lower  House  by  Assembly- 
man Baker  of  Los  Angeles,  but  was  not  pressed  there,  although 
Baker  was  one  of  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  the  policy  pro- 
posed. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  195 

duced  the  so-called  Breed  amendment  considered  above. 
But  the  Gates  amendment  differed  from  the  Breed 
amendment  in  this ;  namely,  that  while  the  Breed  amend- 
ment took  the  direct  course  of  limiting  the  initiative  in 
matters  of  taxation  definitely  prohibiting  such  use,  the 
Gates  amendment  attempted  the  same  thing  by  indirec- 
tion, by  requiring  a  25  per  cent  petition  to  initiate  any 
measure  dealing  with  taxation.  The  petition  required 
under  the  California  initiative  is  8  per  cent.  A  25  per 
cent  petition  would  necessitate  more  than  a  quarter  of 
a  million  signatures.  Such  a  requirement  is  clearly 
prohibitive.  Under  the  Gates  measure,  the  initiative 
could  no  more  have  been  used  on  issues  affecting  taxa- 
tion than  it  could  have  been  under  the  Breed  amend- 
ment which  definitely  prohibited  such  use. 

The  fight  to  nullify  the  Anti-Prize-fight  law  by 
constitutional  amendment  was  confined  to  the  Assembly. 
The  measure  to  that  end  was  one  of  the  most  curious 
ever  offered  in  the  California  Legislature.  The  meas- 
ure was  really  a  statute  introduced  as  a  constitutional 
amendment  which  provided  for  a  prize-fight  commission 
and  authorized  ten-round  fights.  As  a  bid  for  the 
support  of  the  so-called  good  people,  it  provided  that 
no  fights  should  be  pulled  off  on  Sunday.150 

iso  The  proponents  of  this  measure  overlooked  nothing.  At 
San  Francisco  at  least  one  prominent  clergyman  was  taken  to  see 
professional  fighters  of  the  type  of  Benny  Benjamin  box,  that  the 
good  man  might  "be  shown  that  such  contests  are  unobjection- 
able." With  this  entertainment  and  instruction  of  the  clergyman 
as  a  basis,  the  supporters  of  the  measure  actually  circulated  the 
report  in  the  Legislature  that  San  Francisco  clergymen  had  made 
investigation  and  were  in  favor  of  the  proposed  amendment.  As- 
semblymen of  the  type  of  Frank  F.  Merriam  of  Long  Beach, 
frankly  told  those  who  circulated  this  report  that  it  was  without 
foundation.  But  the  report  at  least  had  the  foundation  of  the 
exhibition  fights  at  which  at  least  one  clergyman  attended.  One 


196  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

To  get  this  amendment  through,  fifty-four  Assembly 
votes  were  required.  It  soon  became  evident  to  the 
earnest  supporters  of  the  measure  that  the  fifty-four 
votes  could  not  be  secured,  so  they  abandoned  their 
original  plan  to  permit  a  ten-round  prize-fight  statute 
being  made  part  of  the  State  constitution,  and  amended 
their  measure  by  cutting  out  the  entire  statute  and 
substituting  a  section  providing  that:  "The  Legislature 
is  hereby  expressly  vested  with  plenary  power,  unlimited 
by  any  provision  of  this  constitution,  to  authorize  and 
regulate  boxing,  or  sparring  matches  or  exhibitions  of 
not  more  than  ten  rounds  of  not  more  than  three  min- 
utes' duration  for  each  round." 

The  effect  of  this,  had  the  amended  resolution  been 
adopted,  would  have  been  to  take  from  the  people  their 
powers  to  initiate  laws  affecting  prize  fights. 

Such  an  amendment,  of  course,  brought  down  upon 
it  the  opposition  not  only  of  those  who  were  laboring 
to  save  the  initiative  from  hampering  limitations,  but 
of  the  considerable  group  who  were  in  opposition  to 
prize-fighting.  The  supporters  of  the  measure  there- 
upon added  another  amendment  to  that  quoted  above, 
which  read:  "Provided,  however,  that  nothing  herein 
contained  shall  be  construed  to  contravene  or  limit  or 
in  any  way  affect  any  measure  enacted  by  the  people 
under  the  initiative  provisions  of  Section  1  of  Article 
IV  of  this  constitution." 

As  the  measure  was  thus  amended,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  initiated  Anti-Prize-fight  law  of  1914  could 

of  the  strongest  supporters  of  the  restoration  of  the  prize-ring 
told  the  writer  that  the  clergyman  they  had  entertained  had 
given  his  approval  of  the  proposed  amendment. 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  197 

have  been  affected.  Apparently  all  the  amended  meas- 
ure did  was  to  remove  bills  passed  by  the  Legislature 
from  the  possibility  of  interference  by  the  referendum. 
But  the  proponents  of  the  amendment  were  of  the 
opinion  that  a  ten-round  contest  would  be  possible 
under  it,  and,  in  the  confusion  of  the  situation,  permit- 
ted it  to  come  to  a  vote. 

Considering  the  subject  matter,  a  most  extraordinary 
vote  was  cast  in  its  favor.  Fifty-four  Assembly  votes 
were  necessary  for  its  adoption.  It  actually  received 
forty-seven.  Seven  more  votes  would  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  send  the  measure  to  the  Upper  House  for 
Senate  approval.151 

While  the  pro-vice  side  of  the  attack  on  the  initia- 
tive was  being  heard  in  the  Assembly,  the  groups  repre- 
sented by  the  so-called  People's  Anti-Single  Tax  League 
were  making  the  fight  in  the  Senate  for  the  Gates 
amendment  to  require  a  25  per  cent  petition  to  initia- 
tive measures  affecting  taxation.  They  made  most 
extraordinary  claims  of  support  which  were  echoed  in 
the  reactionary  press  throughout  the  State. 

Governor  Stephens  and  other  progressive  leaders 
took  a  decided  stand  against  the  Gates  attack  on  the 

151  The  Assembly  vote  on  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment 
No.  29  (1919  Series)  was:  For  the  amendment — Assemblymen 
Allen,  Anderson,  Badaracco,  Baker,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Bruck,  Cala- 
han,  Carter,  Easton,  Eksward,  Fleming,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Goetting, 
Graves,  Greene,  Hawes,  Hilton,  Hurley,  Johnston,  Kasch,  Kenney, 
Kline,  Knight,  L/amb,  Lewis,  Lynch,  Madison,  Manning,  Mathews, 
McColgan,  McCray,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parker,  Prender- 
gast,  Ream,  Roberts,  Rose,  Rosenshine,  Stevens,  Vicini,  Warren, 
White,  and  Wickham,  47. 

Against  the  amendment  —  Assemblymen  Ambrose,  Argabrlte, 
Broughton,  Brown,  J.  S.;  Browne,  M.  B. ;  Cleary,  Cummings, 
Doran,  Dorris,  Eden,  Hughes,  Lindley,  Locke,  Mather,  McKeen, 
Merriam,  Miller,  D.  W.;  Oakley,  Odale,  Pettlt,  Polsley,  Price, 
Saylor  Wendering,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright,  T.  M.,  27. 


198 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative 


initiative.  This  opposition  was  bitterly  resented  by  the 
People's  Anti-Single  Tax  League.  In  a  communication 
to  the  Governor,  the  League  went  so  far  as  to  say  that 
the  Governor's  continued  opposition  to  the  measure 
would  "be  a  betrayal  of  the  confidence  which  the  people 
placed  in  you  when  they  elected  you."  152 

This  insulting  letter  had  no  effect  upon  Governor 
Stephens.  The  Governor  and  the  progressives  in  and 
out  of  the  Legislature  continued  unalterably  opposed 
to  the  Gates  measure. 

The  various  progressive  groups  had  been  assured 
that  the  amendment  would  not  be  reported  out  of  the 
Committee  on  Constitutional  Amendments  until  they  had 
been  heard  in  opposition  to  it.  Nevertheless,  practically 
without  a  hearing,  ten  days  before  the  1919  Legislature 

152  This  communication  to  the  Governor  was  signed  by  E.  P. 
Clark,  President  of  the  People's  Anti-single  Tax  League.  It  was 
printed  in  full  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times  of  March  8,  1919,  as 
follows:  "It  has  been  reported  to  us  that  you  and  your  adminis- 
tration will  oppose  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  5,  which  pro- 
vides for  increase  of  percentage  of  signatures  on  initiative  meas- 
ures relating  to  taxation  alone.  You  know,  of  course,  that 
Amendment  No.  5  has  been  endorsed  by  practically  every  busi- 
ness organization  in  California  and  business  interests  throughout 
the  entire  State,  together  with  holders  of  real  property,  who,  we 
believe,  are  the  representative  people  of  California.  This  measure 
is  not  in  anywise  a  subtle  attack  on'  the  initiative,  but  is  simply 
a  reasonable  modification  thereof  as  is  calculated  by  the  only 
practical  method  of  protecting  the  State  from  the  very  serious 
and  very  real  menace  of  the  single  tax  agitators.  Will  you  not 
assume  the  fair  and  honest  position  which?  it  is  presumed  you  and 
the  administration  stand  for,  by  giving1  the  people  of  this  State 
a  fair  chance  to  express  their  wishes  on  this  paramount  issue? 
Any  other  course1  on  your  part  will  be  a  betrayal  of  the  confidence 
which  the  people  placed  in  you  when  they  elected  you.  There 
can  be  no  compromise  in  this  fight  against  the  iniquitous  single 
tax,  as  has  been  fully  explained  to  you  by  Senator  E.  J.  Gates 
and  Philip  D.  Wilson,  secretary  of  this  league,  who  quoted  to 
you  the  opinions  of  the  best  lawyers  in  California  and  those  repre- 
senting the  property  holders  themselves.  We  do  not  object  to 
your  plan  for  a  constitutional  convention,  but  we  seriously  object 
to  your  ideas  that  no  constitutional  amendment  of  any  nature 
whatsoever,  save  that  relating  to  constitutional  convention,  shall 
appear  upon  the  ballot  in  1920.  Will  you  please  reply  by  wire?" 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  199 

adjourned,  the  committee  sent  the  amendment  back  to 
the  Senate  without  recommendation.  Four  days  later 
it  came  to  a  vote.  Of  the  forty  Senators  only  fourteen 
voted  for  it.153  Twenty-seven  votes  were  necessary  for 
its  adoption. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Gates  amendment  its  sup- 
porters announced  they  would  resort  to  the  initiative 
to  put  it  on  the  ballot.  They  carried  out  their  threat.154 

Two  other  constitutional  amendments  aimed  at  the 
initiative  were  introduced  in  this  session,  but  no  action 
was  taken  on  them. 

The  first  of  these  was  Assembly  Constitutional 
Amendment  No.  16,  introduced  by  Wickham  of  Los 
Angeles.  This  measure  abolished  the  initiative  alto- 
gether. The  second  was  Senate  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment No.  6,  introduced  by  Senator  Crowley  of  San 
Francisco.  The  Crowley  measure  required  signers  to 

153  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  No.  5 
(1919  Series)  was  lost  was:    For  the  amendment — Senators  Breed, 
Burnett,    Carr,    F.    M. ;    Chamberlin,    Dennett,    Gates,    Hart,    Irwin, 
King,  Lyon,  Otis,  Purkitt,   Rominger,  and  Sample,  14. 

Against  the  amendment  —  Senators  Anderson,  Benson,  Boggs, 
Brown,  Canepa,  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Crowley,  Duncan,  Evans,  Flaherty, 
Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kehoe,  McDonald,  Nealon, 
Scott,  Sharkey,  Slater,  and  Thompson,  22. 

154  The  various  progressive  organizations  of  the  State  went  on 
record  against  the   Gates  amendment.     The  legislative   committee 
of  the   Federated   Council   of   Teachers'   Clubs  of  the  city  of   Los 
Angeles  for   example,   representing  3600   teachers,   and   empowered 
by  them  to  act,  on  March  20,   1919,  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
tion:    "Be   It   Resolved,    That   the   teachers    of   Los    Angeles   most 
urgently  request  the  members  of  the  Legislature  of  California  to 
vote    against    the    passage    of    Constitutional    Amendment    No.    5, 
which  would  increase  the  number  of  names  necessary  in  initiative 
petitions  in  matters  relating  to  taxation  from  the  present  rate  of 
8    per   cent   of   the    last   vote    cast   for    Governor    to   25    per   cent. 
This  would  amount  to  about  250,000  names,   a  number  impossible 
to  obtain.    Moreover,  inasmuch  as  the  State  is  put  to  some  expen- 
diture in  the  case  of   every  initiative  petition,   it  is  possible  that 
every   such   expenditure   might  be    construed   by   the   courts   as   a 
matter  affecting  taxation,   and   thus   the   25   per  cent   requirement 
might  be  imposed  in  the  case  of  all  initiative  petitions." 


2oo  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

an  initiative  petition  to  appear  before  a  public  official. 
Neither  one  of  these  measures  was  taken  seriously, 
and  neither  got  beyond  committee. 

The  measure  which  the  Anti-Single  Tax  League, 
true  to  their  threat  made  in  the  1919  Legislature,  placed 
on  the  1920  ballot  was  practically  the  same  which 
Senator  Gates  had  introduced  at  the  1919  session  and 
which  had  met  with  such  overwhelming  defeat  in  the 
upper  house.155  To  carry  this  amendment  the  League 
covered  the  State  with  a  most  efficient  organization. 
During  the  summer  and  fall  of  1920,  speakers  sent  out 
by  the  League  appeared  before  commercial  bodies,  im- 
provement societies,  fraternal  organizations,  women's 
clubs,  etc.,  to  urge  that  the  people  vote  away  from 
themselves  the  power  to  initiate  laws  affecting  taxation. 
Newspaper  advertising  was  used  extensively,  and  the 
State  thoroughly  circularized  in  the  interest  of  the 
amendment. 

Throughout  the  campaign  the  supporters  of  the 
amendment  endeavored  to  confuse  the  public  into  be- 
lieving that,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  opponents  of 
the  Single  Tax,  it  was  as  important  to  carry  the  initia- 
tive-restricting measure  as  to  defeat  the  amendment 
providing  for  the  Single  Tax.  In  this,  as  the  sequel 
showed,  they  failed  utterly. 

155  The  change  which  the  proposed  amendment  made  In  the 
initiative  as  provided  for  in  the  California  State  Constitution  was 
as  follows:  "Provided,  however,  that  if  said  proposed  law  or 
amendment  to  the  constitution  relates  to  the  assessment  or  collec- 
tion of  taxes,  or  provides  for  the  modification  or  repeal  of  this 
proviso,  it  shall  not  be  submitted  to  thei  electors  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section,  unless  the  petition  proposing  it  is  certified 
as  herein  provided  to  have  been  signed  by  qualified  electors,  equal 
in  number  to  twenty-five  per  cent  of  'all  of  the  votes  cast  for  all 
candidates  for  Governor  at  the  last  preceding  general  election 
at  which  a  governor  was  elected." 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  201 

To  meet  this  anti-initiative  campaign,  progressive 
citizens,  under  the  leadership  of  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes 
of  Los  Angeles,  organized  the  League  to  Protect  the 
Initiative.  The  object  of  this  League,  as  set  forth  in 
its  literature,  was  "to  defeat  the  proposed  amendment 
to  the  initiative  law  which  seeks  to  destroy  the  power 
of  the  people  to  initiate  laws  pertaining  to  the  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  taxes;  and  to  resist  any  other 
attacks,  open  or  covert,  upon  the  initiative."  The  offi- 
cers of  the  organization  included  both  United  States 
Senators  from  California,  Hiram  W.  Johnson  and 
James  D.  Phelan;  Dr.  David  P.  Barrows,  president  of 
the  University  of  California;  Dr.  Ray  Lyman  Wilbur, 
president  of  Stanford  University;  Lieutenant-Governor 
C.  C.  Young,  Herbert  C.  Hoover,  and  Hon.  William 
Kent.156 

The  nature  of  the  amendment  and  the  character  of 


156  The  officers  of  the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative  were: 
President,  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes;  secretaries,  Mrs.  Herbert  A. 
Cable  and  L.  E.  Blochman;  vice-presidents,  Ernest  P.  Clarke, 
Mrs.  Frank  A.  Gibson,  Mrs.  Mary  Roberts  Coolidge,  Mr.  A.  E. 
Boynton;  honorary  vice-presidents,  Senator  Hiram  W.  Johnson, 
Herbert  C.  Hoover,  Pres.  David.  P.  Barrows,  Pres.  Ray  Lyman 
Wilbur,  Pres.  James  A.  B.  Scherer,  Lieut-Gov.  C.  C.  Young,  Sena- 
tor James  D.  Phelan,  William  Kent,  A.  J.  Wallace,  Edwin  A. 
Meserve,  Samuel  M.  Shortridge;  executive  committee  (south) — S.  C. 
Graham,  chairman;  Alfred  G.  Bartlett,  George  F.  Bidwell,  Seth 
Brown,  William  E.  /Brown,  Mrs.  Oliver  C.  Bryant,  Kemper  Camp- 
bell, William  J.  Carr,  Mrs.  H.  S.  Darling,  Miss  Paula  Dunnigan, 
Miss  Mary  Foy,  Miss  Lloy  Galpin,  John  P.  Hamilton,  P.  M.  John- 
son, Mrs.  H.  H.  Koons,  Joseph  E.  Lewinsohn,  Meyer  Lissner, 
Mrs.  A.  S.  Lobingier,  Mrs.  Force  Parker,  Albert  Shaw,  Mrs. 
Seward  A.  Simons,  Mrs.  J.  Wells  Smith,  Marshall  Stimston,  Miss 
Bessie  Stoddart,  Mrs.  Shelley  Tolhurst,  Miss  Van  de  Goorberg, 
Mrs.  Mabel  Willebrandt,  Dr.  Byron  H.  Wilson,  Mr.  Stanley  B. 
Wilson,  Miss  Mary  Workman;  executive  committee  (north) — Hon. 
C.  C.  Young,  chairman;  Ben  S.  Allen,  A.  E.  Boynton,  Dr.  Adelaide 
Brown,  John  S.  Chambers,  Mrs.  Mary  Roberts  Coolidge,  Mrs. 
A.  M.  De  Yo,  Herbert  C.  Jones,  William  Kehoe,  Irving  Martin,  Mrs. 
A.  E.  Osborne,  Chester  H.  Rowell,  Paul  Scharrenberg,  Robert 
Telfer,  George  S.  Walker,  J.  E.  White. 


2O2  Attacks  on  the  Initiative 

the    campaign   carried    on    for   it,    thoroughly    aroused 
California  progressives. 

"The  amendment  as  proposed,"  said  Governor  Wil- 
liam D.  Stephens  in  a  public  statement,  "contains  a 
blow  at  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  initiative. 
I  well  understand  and  regret  the  expense  of  opposing 
at  every  general  election  proposed  statutes  and  con- 
stitutional amendments.  But,  in  my  judgment,  it  would 
be  unwise  and  unjust  to  weaken  the  initiative  in  the 
manner  as  set  forth.  The  right  of  the  people  to  avail 
themselves  of  this  important  instrument  of  the  Gov- 
ernment should  not  be  curtailed.  It  is  far  better  to 
tolerate  some  abuses  than  to  impair  this  great  factor  in 
free  government." 

Senator  Hiram  W.  Johnson  denounced  the  measure 
as  an  insidious  attack  aimed  at  nullification  of  the 
initiative. 

"The  proposed  amendment,"  said  Senator  Johnson, 
"which  requires  the  signatures  of  25  per  cent  of  the 
voters  to  a  petition,  is  not  an  amendment  to  the  initia- 
tive, but  a  nullification  of  it.  The  initiative  is  a  potent 
and  necessary  weapon  in  these  days.  The  recent 
tendency  to  reaction  makes  its  preservation  more  im- 
portant now  than  at  any  time  since  its  adoption.  It 
is  peculiarly  a  weapon  designed  for  the  protection  of 
the  people.  To  demand  a  petition  signed  by  250,000 
or  more  voters,  before  it  could  be  put  into  operation 
is  to  destroy  absolutely  its  power,  and  to  take  from  the 
people  its  necessary  protection.  If  the  constitutional 
amendment  giving  our  people  the  initiative  is  to  be 
destroyed,  the  attack  should  be  a  frontal  one  upon 


Attacks  on  the  Initiative  203 

the  whole  scheme,  not  insidiously  upon  a  part.  We, 
who  still  have  an  abiding  confidence  in  the  righteous- 
ness and  wisdom  of  the  people,  should  defeat  the 
proposed  amendment,  and  defeat  it  overwhelmingly." 

The  campaign  conducted  by  the  League  to  Protect 
the  Initiative  was  one  of  straight  publicity.  All  the 
League  attempted  to  do  was  to  show  the  effect  the 
proposed  measure  would  have  upon  direct  legislation, 
relying  upon  the  public  confidence  in  and  support  of 
the  initiative  to  vote  down  the  proposed  limitation. 
In  this,  the  League  was  successful.  The  public  was 
not  misled  into  confusing  the  initiative  issue  with  that 
of  the  single  tax.  The  single  tax  measure  was  voted 
down  with  a  majority  of  366,809  against  it.  The  at- 
tempt to  limit  the  initiative  on  the  ground  that  such 
limitation  is  necessary  to  save  the  State  from  the 
single  tax  was  defeated  by  a  majority  of  123,598. 

The  defeat  was  State- wide  and  general.  Of  the 
fifty-eight  counties  of  the  State,  fifty-seven  returned 
majorities  against  it.  The  single  exception  was  Alpine 
County,  the  smallest  county  numerically  in  the  State.157 

The  opponents  of  the  initiative  had  suffered  as 
complete  defeat  in  their  appeal  to  the  people,  as  they 
had  experienced  in  the  defeat  of  the  Gates  amendment 
at  the  1919  legislative  session. 


157  Alpine  County  registered  93  voters  for  the  1920  election. 
Of  the  93,  70  went  to  the  polls.  Of  the  70  who  voted,  40  failed 
to  vote  on  the  initiative-limiting  measure.  Of  the  30  votes  cast 
on  this  issue*  21  were  in  favor  of  limiting1  the  initiative,  9  against 
such  limitation.  In  all  the  other  counties  of  the  State  the  measure 
was  defeated.  But  the  Alpine  County  vote  gave  the  People's 
Anti-single  Taxpayers  League  opportunity  to  say  that  in  one 
county  of  the  State  they  carried  the  initiative-limiting  measure 
by  a  vote  of  more  than  two  to  one. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
1921  LEGISLATURE  UPHOLDS  THE  INITIATIVE. 

In  two  years  the  opponents  of  the  initiative  had 
made  a  complete  circle.  At  the  1919  session  of  the 
Legislature  they  had  attempted  limitation  of  the  initia- 
tive in  th'e  matters  of  prize-fighting  and  taxation. 
Failing  there,  they  had  appealed  to  the  voters  direct, 
and  again  had  they  failed.  January,  1921,  found  them 
once  more  before  the  Legislature  following  their  iden- 
tical pleas  of  two  years  before;  namely,  to  nullify  the 
initiative  law  of  1914  limiting  boxing  contests  to  four 
rounds,  and  to  prevent  the  use  of  the  initiative  in 
matters  concerning  taxation,  by  requiring  impossible 
petitions. 

The  move  against  the  1914  anti-prize  fight  law  was 
staged  in  the  Senate  instead  of  in  the  Assembly  as 
had  been  the  case  two  years  before.  The  measure, 
Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  33,  was  introduced 
by  Senator  Scott  of  San  Francisco. 

This  Scott  amendment  provided  for  a  State  com- 
mission as  had  the  original  Assembly  amendment  of 
1919,  but,  whereas  the  1919  amendment  permitted 
ten-round  contests,  the  Scott  amendment  authorized 
fifteen  rounds.  But  the  Scott  amendment,  as  had  that 
of  1919,  made  its  concession  to  "the  good  people,"  by 
virtuously  providing  there  should  be  no  prize-fights 
held  on  Sunday. 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         205 

Scott  managed  to  get  his  amendment  out  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Constitutional  Amendments.  It 
came  to  vote  on  April  22.  Twenty-seven  votes  were 
required  for  its  adoption.  Nineteen  were  cast  for 
it.158  For  a  second  time,  the  California  Legislature 
defeated  the  attempt  to  set  aside  the  initiated  anti- 
prize  fight  law  of  1914. 

The  attempts  to  strike  at  the  initiative  by  appeal  to 
popular  prejudice  against  the  single  tax  took  several 
forms. 

In  the  Assembly,  Manning  of  Marin  County  pro- 
posed that  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  as 
to  provide  that,  "no  initiative  measure,  proposing  to 
amend  the  revenue  and  taxation  laws  of  the  State  of 
California,  by  requiring  that  all  revenues  and  taxes 
shall  be  collected  from  one  class  of  property,  namely 
land,  and  exempting  from  taxation,  specifically  or 
otherwise,  any  or  all  other  classes  of  property,  shall 
be  submitted  to  be  voted  on  at  a  general  or  special 
election."  159 

The  measure  was  not  taken  very  seriously;  little 
attention  was  given  it  in  the  public  press;  few  ex- 
pected to  see  it  get  out  of  committee.  Nevertheless, 
three  months  after  its  introduction,  the  Committee  on 


IBS  The  vote  by  which  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  33 
was  defeated  was:  For  the  amendment — Senators  Breed,  Burnett, 
Canepa,  Carr,  P.  M. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Flaherty,  Hart,  In- 
gram, Inman,  Irwin,  Lyon,  McDonald,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Sample,  Scott, 
Sharkey,  and  Shearer.  19. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Carr, 
W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden,  Gates,  Harris,  Jones,  King,  Nel- 
son, Osborne,  Rigdon,  Rominger,  Rush,  Slater,  and  Tonkin,  18. 

159  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  12  (1921  Series). 


206         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

Constitutional  Amendments  sent  it  back  to  the  Assem- 
bly to  be  voted  upon  "without  recommendation."  There 
are  indications  that  the  road  was  well  prepared  for  it 
to  go  through.  In  twenty-four  hours  after  its  return 
to  the  Assembly,  the  amendment  could  have  been  put 
to  vote. 

But  it  wasn't  put  to  vote.  The  League  to  Protect 
the  Initiative  had  got  wind  of  what  was  going  on,  and 
the  League's  agent  at  Sacramento  was  instructed  to 
see  to  it  that  the  members  of  the  Assembly  were 
thoroughly  informed  as  to  what  the  Manning  amend- 
ment meant.  With  such  understanding,  all  danger 
of  adoption  of  the  amendment  passed.  It  finally  was 
returned  to  the  committee  to  which  it  had  been  origi- 
nally sent. 

After  this  failure  to  slip  the  Manning  amendment 
through  the  Assembly,  the  supporters  of  such  measures 
adopted  new  tactics.  They  represented  that  they  were 
at  Sacramento  in  the  interest  of  the  initiative,  and 
even  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  they  had  the  support 
of  the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative,  of  which  Dr. 
John  R.  Haynes  was  president.  In  some  instances  at 
least,  they  stated  that  Dr.  Haynes,  as  president  of  the 
League,  approved  the  proposed  changes  in  initiative 
provisions.  While  such  claims  unquestionably  worked 
confusion  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  both  houses, 
in  the  end  it  got  the  opponents  of  the  initiative  no 
votes. 

Following  the  defeat  of  the  Manning  amendment, 
the  supporters  of  such  measures  made  a  drive  on  the 
Senate,  taking  up  Senate  Constitutional  Amendment 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         207 

No.  26  which  had  been  introduced  by  Senator  Burnett 
of  San  Francisco. 

This  measure  was  in  effect  the  same  as  that  which 
the  Anti-Single  Tax  League  had  placed  on  the  ballot 
at  the  1920  election,  and  which  had  been  defeated  in 
every  county  of  the  State  except  Alpine.  It  provided 
for  a  25  per  cent  requirement  for  all  initiative  petitions 
that  touched  upon  taxation. 

Supporters  of  the  Burnett  measure  went  before  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Constitutional  Amendments  with 
the  statement  that  the  supporters  of  the  initiative  now 
favored  the  proposed  increase  in  initiative  petitions 
affecting  taxation,  and  that  even  President  Haynes  of 
the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative  looked  in  favor 
upon  it.160 

The  committee,  which  had  been  hastily  called  to- 
gether for  the  purpose,  decided  to  recommend  that 
the  25  per  cent  requirement  for  initiative  petitions  pro- 
posed in  the  Burnett  amendment  be  reduced  to  15  per 
cent,  and  that  the  measure  thus  amended  be  sent  to 
the  Senate  with  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted.161 

160  The  Sacramento  Bee  in  its  issue  of  April  13,  1921,  stated 
of  the  representations  made  to  the  committee:  "John  R.  Haynes 
of  Los  Angeles,  head  of  the  League  to  Preserve  the  Initiative, 
has  written  to  members  of  the  Legislature  to  fight  the  passage 
of  all  measures  seeking  to  change  the  initiative.  However,  it 
was  declared  in  the  committee  by  Burnett  that  even  Haynes  now 
looks  with  favor  upon  the  proposed  amendment." 

lei  Under  date  of  April  14,  the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative, 
in  a  letter  to  every  member  of  the  Senate,  signed  by  President 
Haynes,  denied  the  report  that  it  approved  the  Burnett  amend- 
ment as  follows:  "The  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative,  composed 
of  thousands  of  very  responsible  citizens  of  this  State,  opposes 
any  change  in  the  initiative  provisions  of  the  constitution.  Espe- 
cially are  they  opposed  to  any  increase  in  the  number  of  signa- 
tures necessary  upon  an  initiative  petition.  As  the/  population  of 
the  State  increases,  the  number  of  signatures  required  upon  peti- 
tions automatically  increases.  Eight  per  cent  of  the  vote  cast 


ao8         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

Senator  William  J.  Carr  who  appeared  in  the  com- 
mittee room  just  as  the  five  Senators  present  were 
taking  this  action,  vigorously  opposed  the  measure, 
and  asked  that  he  be  recorded  as  voting  no.  The  five 
other  members  present  outvoted  him,  however. 

Carr  at  once  proceeded  to  organize  the  Senate  to 
defeat  the  Burnett  measure. 

"I  am,"  said  Senator  Carr  in  an  interview  generally 
published  over  the  State,  "unalterably  opposed  in  any 
circumstances  to  disturbing  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum as  they  stand  today  in  the  Constitution.  I  voted 
'no'  in  the  committee  on  its  being  reported  out,  and 
I  have  been  conferring  with  Senators  for  attack  upon 
the  measure,  which  is  now  on  the  third  reading  file. 
No  matter  what  may  be  said  of  the  purpose  of  the 
proposed  amendment,  California  cannot  afford  to  dis- 
turb the  constitutional  protection  the  people  are  given 
under  the  existing  provisions." 

Publicity  defeated  the  Manning  amendment  in  the 
Assembly;  the  same  publicity  made  adoption  of  the 
Burnett  amendment  in  the  Senate  impossible.  On  the 
same  page  of  the  Senate  Journal  for  April  22,  where 
the  defeat  of  the  Scott  measure  to  legalize  fifteen- 
round  prize-fights  by  limiting  the  initiative  is  recorded, 


at  the  last  election  (987,632)  would  amount  to  80,000  without  any 
increase  in  the  percentage.  Fifteen  per  cent  of  the  vote  at  the 
last  election  (which  is  the  amount  proposed  in  the  (amended)  Bur- 
nett amendment)  would  amount  to  144,000  verified  signatures,  a 
number  impossible  to  obtain.  In  order  to  have  144,000  verified 
signatures,  experience  has  shown  that  it  is  necessary  to  secure 
about  200,000.  Many  names  are  thrown  out  because  of  technical 
reasons,  such  as  leaving  the  voting  precinct  in  which  registered, 
signing  in  the  wrong  county,  etc.  Only  the  large  moneyed  inter- 
ests could  secure  such  enormous  numbers  of  signatures,  and  the 
people  would  be  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  initiative." 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         209 

appears  the  following  record  of  the  disposition  of  the 
Burnett  amendment:  "On  motion  of  Senator  Burnett, 
Senate  Constitutional  Amendment  26  was  ordered  with- 
drawn from  the  file  and  re-referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Constitutional  Amendments."  That  was  the  last 
heard  of  the  measure. 

In  the  meantime,  the  representatives  of  the  Anti- 
Single  Tax  League  had  attacked  the  initiative  from 
another  quarter;  this  time  by  attempted  statute. 

The  proposed  statute  imposed  restrictions  which, 
could  they  have  been  enforced,  would  have  rendered 
the  initiative  practically  inoperative.162  Representing 

162  The  proposed  statute  was  clearly  In  conflict  with  Section  1. 
Article  4  of  the  initiative  provisions  of  the  State  constitution. 
For  example,  the  proposed  measure  provided  that  "Satisfactory 
evidence  that  the  signers  to  such  (initiative)  petition  are  qualified 
voters  of  the  county  in  which  signed.  Such  evidence  may  be  by 
registration  card  issued  by  the  county  clerk  ...  or  otherwise  as 
may  be  authorized  by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  State."  The 
initiative  provision  of  the  'California  Constitution,  Article  4,  Sec- 
tion 1,  under  the  head  of  miscellaneous  provisions,  paragraph  3, 
provides:  "Any  initiative  or  referendum  petition  may  be  pre- 
sented in  sections,  but  each  section  shall  contain  a  full  and  cor- 
rect copy  of  the  title  and  text  of  the  proposed  measure.  Bach 
signer  shall  add  to  his  signature  his  place  of  residence,  giving 
the  street  and  number,  if  such  exist.  His  election  precinct  shall 
also  appear  on  the  paper  after  his  name.  The  number  of  signa- 
tures attached  to  each  section  shall  be  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
person  soliciting  signatures  to  the  same.  Any  qualified  elector 
of  the  State  shall  be  competent  to  solicit  said  (signatures  within 
the  county  or  city  and  county  of  which  he  is  an  elector.  Each 
section  of  the  petition  shall  beatf  the  name  of  the  county  or  city 
and  county  in  which  it  is  circulated,  and  only  qualified  electors 
of  such  county  or  city  and  county  shall  be  competent  to  sign 
such  section.  Each  section  shall  have  attached  thereto  the  affi- 
davit of  the  person  soliciting  signatures  to  the  same,  stating  his 
own  qualifications,  and  that  all  the  signatures  to  the  attached 
section  were  made  in  his  presence,  and  that  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  belief  each  signature  to  the  section  is  the  genuine 
signature  of  the  person  whose  name;  it  purports  to  be,  and  no 
other  affidavit  thereto  shall  be  required.  The  affidavit  of  any 
person  soliciting  signatures  hereunder  shall  be  verified  free  of 
charge  by  any  officer  authorized  to  administer  oaths.  Such  peti- 
tions so  verified  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  signatures 
thereon  are  genuine,  and  that  the  persons  signing  the  same  are 
qualified  electors.  Unless,  and  until  it  be  otherwise  proven  upon 
official  investigation,  it  shall  be  presumed  that  the  petition  pre- 


2io         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

themselves  as  seeking  to  strengthen  the  initiative,  the 
proponents  of  the  measure  visited  newspaper  offices  to 
get  newspaper  support  for  their  new  drive.  In  this, 
they  met  with  signal  failure.  Nevertheless,  Assembly- 
man F.  D.  Mather  of  Pasadena,  believing  that  the 
proposed  statute  was  intended  to  strengthen  the  initia- 
tive, was  prevailed  upon  to  introduce  it.  The  measure 
was  known  as  Assembly  bill  1330. 

Once  more  did  the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative 

sented  contains  the  signatures  of  the  requisite  number  of  qualified 
electors."  It  will  be  seen  that  under  this  section  the  signer  does 
not  have  to  do  anything  else,  is  not  required  to  present  a  regis- 
tration card  nor  is  the  solicitor  required  to  demand  any  or  to 
require  the  signer  to  obey  any  regulations  that  the  Attorney- 
General  may  authorize.  The  final  words  of  the  constitutional  pro- 
vision for  the  initiative  are:  "This  section  is  self -executing,  but 
legislation  may  be  enacted  to  facilitate  its  operation.  But  in  no 
way  limiting  or  restricting  either  the  provisions  of  this  section 
or  the  powers  herein  reserved."  If  the  solicitors  are  authorized 
to  demand  a  registration  certificate,  it  would  be  a  restriction 
upon  the  provisions  of  the  initiative.  It  was  evidently  the  inten- 
tion of  the  framers  of  this  provision  to  the  constitution  that  the 
only  requirement  that  was  necessary  for  the  signer  of  a  petition 
was  for  the  signer  to  state  to  the  solicitor  that  he  is  a  qualified 
voter.  The  right  of  any  qualified  voter  to  sign  a  petition  under 
these  sections  of  the  constitution  cannot  be  restricted.  If,  how- 
ever, a  signature  can  only  be  appended  under  such  conditions  as 
were  prescribed  in  the  proposed  statutes  and  such  others  as  may 
be  authorized  by  the  Attorney -General,  it  would  decidedly  limit 
and  restrict  provisions  of  the  constitution.  It  would  be  in  the 
power  of  the  Attorney-General  to  kill  every  initiative  petition  by 
attaching  conditions  impossible  to  be  complied  with.  The  pro- 
posed statute  had  other  limiting  provisions  clearly  as  unconsti- 
tutional as  the  one  that  has  been,  considered.  For  example,  the 
Act  provided  that  "signers  of  initiative  petitions  or  referendum 
petitions  shall  certify  that  they  have  read  the  title  to  such  peti- 
tions and  favor  the  proposition  covered  by  it,  and  that  it  has  not 
been  misrepresented  to  them  by  the  solicitor  securing  their  signa- 
ture." How  could  signers  make  such  certification?  Would  they 
demand  an  affidavit  from  each  signer,  or  would  they  have  to 
sign  another  petition  stating  that  fact?  Again,  Section  3  of  the 
Act  provided  that  solicitors  "who  secure  signatures  upon  initia- 
tive and  referendum  petitions,  which  include  in  the  certificate 
which  they  are  required  to  file  on  each  section  of  such  petition 
a  statement  that  they  have  required  from  signers  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  they  are  qualified  voters  and  that  they  have  not  mis- 
represented the  object  of  such  petition  to  such  signers."  Under 
Section  1  of  the  Act,  the  Attorney-General  would  be  able  to  place 
impossible  restrictions  upon  what  was  to  be  termed  satisfactory 
evidence. 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         211 

resort  to  publicity,  and  again  were  the  advocates  of 
limiting  the  initiative  blocked.163  Assemblyman  Mather, 
when  informed  as  to  the  measure's  significance,  made 

163  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes,  President  of  the  League  to  Protect 
the  Initiative,  under  date  of  April  8,  wrote  Assemblyman  Mather 
regarding  this  measure  as  follows:  "I  understand  that  you  have 
introduced  A.  B.  1330,  upon  the  solicitation  of  the  representative 
of  the  Anti-single  Tax  League  and  California  Real  Estate  Asso- 
ciation. These  are  the  organizations  which  put  No.  4  (the 
Initiative-limiting  Amendment)  upon  the  ballot  last  election,  after 
they  failed  to  succeed  in  inducing  the  Legislature  of  1919  to  sub- 
mit the  same  to  the  people.  This  amendment  was,  as  you  know, 
defeated  by  a  majority  of  123,000.  Both  of  these  organizations 
are  the  bitter  enemies  of  the  initiative.  I  have  not  the  pleasure 
of  your  acquaintance,  but  I  am  informed  that  you  are  public- 
spirited,  conscientious  and  honest,  and  are  not  averse  to  the 
principle  of  the  initiative.  In  fact,  I  have  in  the  office  a  ques- 
tionnaire sent  out  by  the  League  to  Protect  the  Initiative  and 
signed  by  yourself  in  which  you  say  that  you  are  in  favor  of 
retaining  the  initiative  provisions  of  the  State  constitution,  which 
have  now  been  in  effect  for  nine  years.  I  do  not  believe  that 
you  are  aware  of  the  defects  that  are  very  apparent  to  one 
who  is  conversant  with  the  initiative  provision  of  the  constitu- 
tion. This  bill  seems  to  me  to  be  designed  by  those  who  asked 
you  to  introduce  it,  as  an  insidious  method  of  killing1  the  initia- 
tive. In  fact,  I  think  it  is  a  greater  blow  at  the  initiative,  which 
you  are  in  favor  of  retaining,  than  was  Amendment  No.  4,  because 
it  would  be  impossible  to  get  any  petition  signed  under  the  condi- 
tions laid  down  in  A.  B.  1330.  How  many  people  preserve  their 
certificate  of  registration?  I  do  not  know  where  mine  is,  and  I 
doubt  very  much  if  you  know  where  yours  is.  If  we  were  asked 
to  sign  a  petition  we  could  not  do  it  until  we  hunted  up  our 
receipts  or  got  new  ones  from  the  County  Clerk.  Under  such 
circumstances  it  would  be  practically  impossible  to  get  the  requi- 
site number  of  signatures  upon  any  initiative  or  referendum  peti- 
tion. The  provision  that  allows  the  Attorney-General  to  decide* 
what  evidences  are  necessary  to  make  certain  the  legal  qualifi- 
cations of  the  voter  would  make  him  absolute  master  of  the 
situation  and  would  prevent  any  petition  from  receiving  even  a 
small  portion  of  the  signatures  required.  The  Attorney-General 
might  be  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  initiative  and  might  make  absurd 
requirements  for  the  signers'  qualifications,  such  as  a  certificate 
from  his  office  and  various  other  conditions  difficult  to  comply 
with.  Again,  in  Section  2  of  your  bill  you  say  that  the  signer  of  the 
petition  shall  certify  certain  things  when  he  signs  the  bill.  This 
is  very  indefinite  and  ambiguous.  Do  you  want  him  to  make  an 
affidavit  to  the  effect  that  he  has  read  the  bill,  or  to  write  a 
special  certificate  or  to  merely  sign  another  statement  that  he 
has  read  the  title?  With  reference  to  Section  3.  of  your  bill,  are 
you  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  are  now  upon  the  statute  books 
of  the  State  several  bills  passed  in  1917,  which  make  it  a  penal 
offense  to  misrepresent,  to  forge  or  to  allow  signatures  put  upon 
the  petition  which  the  solicitor  knows  to  be  those  of  non-voters? 
It  seems  to  me  that  these  provisions  just  mentioned  cover  all 
the  points  brought  out  in  your  bill.  After  you  have  carefully 
reconsidered  your  bill,  I  hope  that  you  may  see  your  way  clear 
not  to  push  it." 


212         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

no  move  to  get  it  out  of  the  committee  to  which  it 
had  been  referred. 

After  these  defeats  for  the  agencies  which  were 
attempting1  to  limit  the  use  of  the  initiative,  no  attempts 
were  made  to  press  similar  constitutional  amendments 
which  had  been  introduced.  The  committees  to  which 
they  were  referred  took  no  action  upon  them.164 

Nevertheless,  one  more  move  to  call  the  initiative 
into  question  was  made.  On  April  28,  within  less  than 
twenty- four  hours  of  the  time  set  for  final  adjourn- 
ment, Senator  Arbuckle  of  Santa  Barbara  introduced 
a  Senate  resolution  calling  for  a  special  committee  to 
consist  of  State  officials  to  investigate  the  operation 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  various  States,  to 
include  the  safeguards  which  are  in  effect  governing 
the  preparation,  signing  and  filing  of  petitions,  and  the 
limitations,  if  any,  placed  upon  applications  of  initiative 
measures  affecting  assessment  and  taxation,  said  com- 
mittee to  report  by  January  1,  1922.  The  committee 
was  also  called  upon  to  recommend  the  nature  of 
legislation  and  the  limitations  to  be  placed  upon  appli- 


164  Important  among  these  were  Assembly  Constitutional 
Amendment  27  introduced  by  Assemblyman  R.  P.  Benton  of  Los 
Angeles.  This  Benton  measure  required  a  fee  of  4  cents  per 
name  to  be  paid  to  the  county  clerk  or  registrar  for  each  name  on 
such  initiative  petitions  as  might  be  presented.  Under  this  pro- 
vision, for  a  State-wide  measure,  a  filing  fee  of  approximately 
$4000  would  be  required.  As  population  increases,  this  filing  fee 
would,  of  course,  increase.  The  effect  of  it  would  have  been  to 
deny  the  use  of  the  initiative  to  all  but  the  very  wealthy.  An- 
other such  measure  was  Assembly  Constitutional  Amendment  No. 
35  introduced  by  Carleton  Greene  of  San  Luis  Obispo.  The 
Greene  amendment  increased  the  number  of  signatures  required 
to  initiate  a  law  from  8  per  cent  to  20  per  cent.  This  would 
have  made  the  number  of  signatures  necessary  for  such  initiation 
in  excess  of  200,000,  an  impossible  requirement.  The  adoption  of 
this  amendment  would  have  practically  left  the  State  without 
workable  Initiative  machinery. 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         213 

cation  of  initiative  petitions  affecting  assessment  and 
taxation. 

This  measure  was,  in  the  rush  of  the  closing  hours 
of  the  session,  being  put  through  without  many  under- 
standing just  what  it  meant,165  when  Senator  Herbert 
C.  Jones  of  Santa  Clara,  sensing  that  such  a  resolution 
at  so  late  a  date  might  well  be  worth  looking  into, 
suggested  that  before  it  were  acted  upon  it  be  printed 
in  the  Journal,  that  all  could  familiarize  themselves 
with  its  provisions.  This  step  was  taken. 

Senator  Arbuckle,  when  the  measure  came  up  on 
the  29th  for  vote,  was  closely  questioned  regarding 
it.  The  members  had  had  an  opportunity  to  read  it, 
and  were  in  an  inquiring  mood.  The  measure  pro- 
vided, for  example,  that  the  committee  of  investigation 
should  report  back  by  "January  1,  1922."  Senator 
Arbuckle's  colleagues  pointed  out  to  him  that  the  Legis- 
lature would  not  convene  in  regular  session  until  after 
January  1,  1923.  They  wanted  to  know  if  a  mistake 
had  not  been  made,  and  if  he  had  intended  the  report 
to  be  made  at  the  later  date,  instead  of  1922  as  his 
resolution  provided. 

Senator  Arbuckle  very  frankly  admitted  that  no 
mistake  had  been  made,  that  the  report  was  intended 
for  use  during  the  1922  campaign.  This  was  equiva- 
lent to  stating  that  another  attempt  would  be  made  in 
1922,  to  put  a  measure  on  the  ballot  to  limit  the 
initiative  as  had  been  done  in  1920. 

165  Being  a  mere  Senate  resolution,  a  majority  vote  of  the 
Senate  was  not  required  for  It — a  majority  of  those  present  and 
voting  would  have  been  enough  to  put  it  through.  With  five 
Senators  in  their  seats,  without  a  roll-call,  three  could  have  put 
it  through. 


214         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

Arbuckle,  in  his  opening  speech  for  the  adoption 
of  his  resolution,  declared  himself  to  be  a  "friend  of 
the  initiative,"  but  stated  that  the  initiative  is  threat- 
ened by  two  enemies: 

(1)  By  enemies  who  would  eliminate  it. 

(2)  By  others  who  abuse  it. 

He  stated  that  it  was  his  idea  to  protect  it  from 
both. 

Senator  Herbert  Slater  of  Sonoma  demanded  of 
Arbuckle  what  further  safeguard  the  initiative  requires. 

"The  initiative,"  said  Senator  Slater,  "has  been  in 
operation  in  California  for  ten  years.  There  has  been 
no  serious  abuse  under  it.  What,  I  would  ask  of 
Senator  Arbuckle,  is  the  matter  with  the  initiative 
that  these  continued  attacks  should  be  made  upon  it? 
The  people  by  their  vote  have  shown  that  they  are 
thoroughly  satisfied  with  it.  I  do  not  question  Mr. 
Arbuckle's  word  that  he  is  a  friend  of  the  initiative. 
Nevertheless,  I  am  convinced  that  there  is  something 
back  of  this  resolution.  I  think  we  should  vote  it 
down." 

"I  am  surprised,"  said  Senator  Rigdon,  "that  such 
a  resolution  should  have  been  introduced.  I  would 
like  to  have  Senator  Arbuckle,  who  is  back  of  it, 
explain  what  it  means.  With  Senator  Slater,  I  would 
ask  of  him,  what  is  the  matter  with  the  initiative?  For 
my  part,  I  believe  that  back  of  this  is  a  scheme  to 
bring  the  initiative  into  question." 

"The  thing  that  is  wrong  with  the  initiative,"  said 
Senator  Inman  of  Sacramento  County,  "according  to 
its  enemies,  is  that  it  is  in  the  State  Constitution. 


Legislature  Upholds  Initiative         215 

The  people  are  for  it;  at  the  November  election  by  a 
majority  of  123,000  they  defeated  an  attempt  to  limit 
it.  It  is  well  for  this  State  that  it  is  on  the  books. 
Such  is  the  view  of  the  people  of  California.  They 
regard  the  initiative  as  firmly  established  as  suffrage, 
trial  by  jury,  or  habeas  corpus.  This  Senate  could  as 
well  authorize  a  commission  to  inquire  whether  or  not 
any  of  these  has  proved  successful  in  other  States, 
as  to  provide  such  a  commission  to  'investigate'  the 
initiative." 

Senator  Arbuckle  did  not  meet  the  issues  raised 
by  those  who  spoke  in  opposition  to  his  resolution. 
The  one  Senator  who  came  to  his  relief  was  Burnett 
of  San  Francisco,  the  defeat  of  whose  Constitutional 
Amendment  to  limit  the  initiative  in  matters  of  taxa- 
tion has  already  been  considered. 

When  the  Arbuckle  resolution  came  to  vote,  only 
seven  Senators  voted  for  it.166  Of  these  seven,  three 
besides  Arbuckle  had  introduced  initiative-limiting 
measures.  They  were  Burnett,  Scott,  and  Gates.  The 
other  three  were  Godsil  of  San  Francisco,  Hart  of 
Los  Angeles,  and  Purkitt  of  Glenn  County.167 

166  The  vote  by  which  the  Arbuckle  amendment  was   defeated 
was   as   follows: 

For  the  amendment — Senators  Arbuckle,  Burnett,  Gates,  Godsil, 
Hart,  Purkitt,  and  Scott,  7. 

Against  the  amendment  —  Senators  Allen,  Anderson,  Boggs, 
Canepa,  Carr,  F.  M. ;  Carr,  W.  J.;  Crowley,  Dennett,  Duncan, 
Eden,  Flaherty,  Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones, 
King,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon,  Rush,  Sharkey, 
Shearer,  and  Slater,  27. 

167  The  various  educational  and  civic  bodies  of  the  State  went 
on    record    against    all    the    anti-initiative    measures    which    were 
considered   at   the  1921   session. 

The  following  resolutions  were,  for  example,  sent  by  the  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  the  Public  School  Teachers  of  Los  Angeles 
to  every  member  of  the  Legislature:  "The  Central  Committee, 
representing  the  public  school  teachers'  organizations  of  the 


216         Legislature  Upholds  Initiative 

The  1921  Legislature  adjourned  with  the  opponents 
of  the  initiative  defeated  at  every  point. 

city  of  Los  Angeles,  most  respectfully  but  most  earnestly  re- 
quest the  members  of  the  State  Senate  to  defeat  S.  C.  A. 
No.  26,  which  increases  the  percentage  of  signatures  required  upon 
initiative  petitions  concerning  taxation  from  8  to  15  per  cent. 
Fifteen  per  cent  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  last  election  in  1920, 
would  equal  approximately  150,000.  In  order  to  procure  150,000 
verified  names,  at  least  200,000  would  have  to  be  obtained  upon 
the  petition.  This  immense  number  of  signatures  could  only  be 
obtained  by  the  special  interests  having  large  financial  resources 
at  their  command.  A  similar  amendment  was  placed  on  the  ballot 
at  the  last  election  and  defeated  by  a  majority  of  123,598,  Los 
Angeles  County  alone  giving  a  majority  against  the  amendment 
of  over  23,000." 

The  high  school  teachers  of  Los  Angeles  declared  against  the 
attempted  tinkering  with  the  initiative  as  follows:  "Whereas, 
the  High  School  Teachers'  Association  of  Los  Angeles  believes 
that  the  initiative  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
California  should  be  retained  without  change,  and  Whereas  there 
is  a  Constitutional  Amendment  before  the  State  Senate  known  as 
S.  C.  A.  No.  26  which  would  increase  the  percentage  of  signatures 
required  upon  initiative  petitions  from  8  to  15  per  cent,  and 
Whereas  we  believe  that  this  increase  will  not  prevent  the  great 
moneyed  interests  from  initiating  measures  but  will  prevent  the 
common  people  from  so  doing,  because  of  the  great  expense 
entailed  in  procuring  from  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  two  hundred 
thousand  names  requisite  if  the  proposed  amendment  becomes  a 
law,  therefore  be  it  Resolved,  that  the  High  School  Teachers' 
Association  go  on  record  as  opposed  to  S.  C.  A.  No.  26  and  that 
a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  all  the  members  of  the 
State  Senate  urging  them  to  do  all  that  they  can  to  defeat 
S.  C.  A.  No.  26." 

The  State  Building  Trades  Council  adopted  the  following: 
"Whereas,  in  1911  the  people  of  California  by  a  vote  of  3  to  1 
placed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California  a  provision 
which  gives  to  the  people  the  same  legislative  powers,  through 
the  Initiative  which  the  Legislature  itself  possesses,  and  Whereas, 
the  State  Building  Trades  Council  believes  that  this  initiative 
right  of  the  people  should  not  be  impaired,  restricted,  or  abolished, 
therefore  be  it  Resolved,  that  the  State  Building  Trades  Council 
of  California,  in  conference  assembled  on  this  25th  day  of  March, 
1921,  by  a  unanimous  vote  requests  the  Legislature  of  California 
to  defeat  A.  C.  A.  No.  27,  which  would  require  the  person  filing 
an  initiative  petition  to  deposit  four  cents  per  name  with  the 
county  clerk  for  the  expense  of  checking  the  petition;  A.  C.  A. 
No.  35,  which  would  increase  the  percentage  of  signatures  required 
on  all  Initiative  petitions  from  8  per  cent,  the  present  number,  to 
20  per  cent;  and  S.  C.  A.  No.  26,  which  would  increase  the 
percentage  of  signatures  required  on  all  initiative  petitions  con- 
cerning taxation  from  8  per  cent  to  25  per  cent,  because  all  the 
above  measures;  would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  render  the 
use  of  the  initiative  possible  only  to  special  interests  with  enor- 
mous capital  at  their  command,  and  impossible  to  the  common 
people  at  large,  and  because  on  November  2,  1920,  the  people  of 
California,  by  a  majority  of  123,598.  defeated  Amendment  No.  4 
on  the  ballot  which  proposed  to  destroy  the  initiative  by  requiring 
an  impossible  number  of  signatures  on  initiative  petitions,  thereby 
showing  that  the  people  of  California  still  desire  to  retain  th« 
initiative  power  unimpaired." 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
PARTISAN  AMENDMENT  TO  DIRECT  PRIMARY  DEFEATED. 

Three  Assemblymen,  J.  R.  White  of  Los  Angeles, 
O.  W.  Smith  of  Santa  Barbara  and  Ira  A.  Lee  of 
Pomona,  joined  in  introducing  certain  amendments  to 
the  State  Direct  Primary  law,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  limit  party  nominations  for  office  to  the  party 
with  which  the  candidate  is  affiliated.  That  is  to  say, 
if  the  Democrats  of  a  given  community  wished  to 
nominate,  or  even  to  endorse,  a  Republican  for  office, 
they  would  not  be  permitted  to  do  so,  and  vice  versa. 
This  was  regarded  as  a  step  backward  toward  that 
partisanship  which  was  the  foundation  of  the  old 
Southern  Pacific  machine  rule.  The  bill  was  opposed 
on  that  ground,  and  finally  defeated. 

That  the  Southern  Pacific  machine  was  able  to 
dominate  the  State  after  Gage's  administration,168  which 

168  The  Southern  Pacific  machine,  although  In  continuous  con- 
trol of  State  affairs  from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1879, 
until  the  election  of  Hiram  W.  Johnson  as  Governor  in  1910,  was 
not  unopposed.  On  the  contrary,  there  were  many  uprisings 
against  it.  The  years-long  struggle,  for  example,  to  break  the 
machine's  hold  on  the  State  Railroad  Commission  is  made  basis 
of  Frank  Norris'  novel,  "The  Octopus."  In  1892,  the  opposition 
to  the  machine  actually  elected  a  majority  of  the  State  Legis- 
lature. This  resulted  in  the  election  of  Stephen  M.  White  to  the 
United  States  Senate.  But  the  "organization"  managed  to  involve 
the  Legislature  in  the  scandal  of  the  Rea-Johnson  investigation, 
which  entertained  the  people  while  the  "organization"  made  good 
its  losses.  Six  years  later,  1898,  opposition  to  the  "machine" 
took  formi  in  support  of  the  candidacy  of  James  G.  Maguire  for 
Governor.  Maguire,  the  "Little  Giant"  as  he  was  called,  had, 
as  Congressman  from  California,  blocked  the  railroad's  plans  in 
Congress,  and  won  the  "machine's"  enmity  and  the  People's 
confidence.  Maguire,  was,  however,  defeated,  and  Henry  T.  Gage 


2i 8         Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

ended  in  1902,  was  due  to  election  laws  under  which  it 
was  impractical  for  the  electors  to  give  free  expression 
of  their  wishes  at  the  polls.  With  conviction  that  to 
the  machine's  control  of  primaries  and  elections  was 
due  most  of  the  political  ills  under  which  the  State 
suffered,  came  demand  for  simplification  of  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot,  for  the  direct  primary,  and  for  placing 
the  judiciary  above  the  plane  of  partisan  squabbles. 
Steady  gains  were  made  for  these  reforms.  They 
found  expression  in  well  thought  out  measures  intro- 
duced at  the  1909  session.  Measures  to  correct  the 
corruption  of  the  Australian  ballot  and  to  take  the 
judiciary  out  of  politics  were  defeated  that  year  by 
narrow  margin.169  A  direct  primary  law  was,  how- 
ever, enacted,  but  only  after  it  had  been  loaded  down 
with  hampering  partisan  provisions.170 

elected.  Out  of  this  came  the  complication  of  the  Dan  Burns' 
candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate,  failure  on  the  part  of 
the  Legislature  to  elect  any  Senator  at  all  (for  almost  a  year 
thereafter,  March  4,  1899 -February  8,  1900,  California  was  rep- 
resented by  only  one  United  States  Senator)  and  the  most  serious 
opposition  to  the  machine  that  developed  prior  to  the  organization 
of  the  Lincoln-Roosevelt  League  movement.  This  opposition  actu- 
ally controlled  the  1902  Republican  convention.  It  could  and  did 
prevent  the  nomination  of  Governor  Gage  for  re-election,  but  was 
unable  to  nominate  its  own  leader,  Thomas  Flint.  Failing  to 
nominate  Flint,  the  opposition  to  the  machine  turned  to  George 
C.  Pardee.  Pardee  was  elected.  But  the  machine  continued  in 
control  of  the  Legislature  and  other  departments.  The  machine's 
opposition  to  Pardee  found  expression  in  the  scandals  of  the 
so-called  Santa  Cruz  convention,  the  Republican  State  convention, 
held  at  Santa  Cruz  in  1906.  The  machine  was  in  complete  control. 
Pardee  was  denied  renomination,  James  N.  Gillett  being  named 
in  his  place.  Gillett  was  the  last  California  governor  to  be 
selected  under  the  old  partisan  convention  system. 

169  See    Story    of    the    California    Legislature    of    1909.      A   full 
account  of  how   these  reforms  were  secured  two  years  later  will 
be  found  in  the  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1911. 

170  Progressive  members  of  the  1909  Legislature  predicted  that 
these  partisan  provisions  would  soon  be  done  away  with.     "I  shall 
vote  for  this  report   (the  Direct  Primary  measure  finally  decided 
upon),"   said   Senator   Stetson   of   Alameda   County,    "not   because 


Primary  Amendment  Defeated         219 

These  partisan  provisions  were  responsible  for  the 
defeat  of  Francis  J.  Heney  for  District  Attorney  of 
San  Francisco  in  November,  1909,  and  the  breaking-up 
of  San  Francisco's  prosecution  of  those  who  had  been 
instrumental  in  the  corruption  of  the  government  of 
that  city.171  But,  imperfect  though  it  was,  this  Direct 
Primary  law  of  1909  gave  Hiram  W.  Johnson  the 
opportunity  to  go  directly  to  the  People,  without  any 
intervening  convention,  as  a  candidate  for  Governor. 
His  election,  and  the  overthrow  of  the  machine  fol- 
lowed. 

As  immediate  effect  of  this,  every  progressive  policy 
defeated  at  the  1909  session  found  expression  in  law 
at  the  session  of  1911.  Not  only  the  judiciary,  but 
also  the  school  departments — State,  county,  municipal, 
and  district — were  put  on  a  non-partisan  basis.  The 
Australian  ballot  was  restored  to  its  original  simplicity 
and  effectiveness.  Partisan  limitations  were  eliminated 
from  the  Direct  Primary  law. 

These  were  long  strides  in  the  direction  of  non- 
partisanship  in  State  affairs.  However,  the  gains  did 


I  want  to,  but  because  I  have  to  if  we  are  at  this  session  to 
have  any  Direct  Primary  law  at  all."  Senators  Campbell,  Holo- 
han,  and  Miller  sent  to  the  Secretary's  desk  the  following  expla- 
nation of  their  votes:  "We  voted  for  the  Direct  Primary  bill 
because  it  seems  to  be  the  best  law  that  can  be  obtained  under 
existing  political  conditions.  We  are  opposed  to  many  of  the 
features  of  this  bill,  and  believe  that  the  people  at  the  first 
opportunity  will  instruct  their  representatives  in  the  Legislature 
to  radically  amend  the  same  in  many  particulars,  notably  in 
regard  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senators,  and  the  pro- 
visions that  prevent  the  endorsement  of  a  candidate  by  a  political 
party  or  organization  other  than  the  one  that  first  nominated 
such  candidate." 

171  See  The  System  as  Uncovered  by  the  San  Francisco  Graft 
Prosecution,   Chapter  XXVII. 


22O        Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

not  put  the  State  abreast  of  the  non-partisan  standards 
adopted  by  municipalities,  which  more  closely  reflected 
the  public  demand  that  partisanship  be  done  away 
with,  except  where  a  partisan — that  is  to  say,  Federal — 
issue  is  involved. 

Berkeley  had  pioneered  the  way  by  making  all 
municipal  offices  non-partisan.  The  Berkeley  plan, 
as  it  was  called,  was  taken  up  by  other  municipalities, 
so,  by  the  time  the  1911  Legislature  convened,  all  of 
the  chartered  cities  of  the  State  had  either  adopted  the 
Berkeley  plan,  or  were  about  to  adopt  it.  By  1913, 
there  was  not  a  chartered  city  in  the  State  that 
elected  its  officials  on  the  partisan  basis. 

The  1913  Legislature  accordingly  brought  the 
county  governments  up  to  the  non-partisan  standards 
of  the  municipalities.  Every  county  office  was,  under 
this  1913  Act,  made  non-partisan.  More  than  2300 
State  and  county  offices,  which  during  the  days  of 
machine  rule  had  been  partisan,  were  by  the  Acts 
of  1911  and  1913  made  non-partisan.  As  the  munici- 
palities had  by  their  own  votes  banished  partisan- 
ship, when  the  1913  Legislature  adjourned  there 
were,  aside  from  the  members  of  the  Legislature, 
only  eleven  officers  of  the  State,  or  of  any  political 
subdivision,  who  were  elected  on  partisan  basis. 

When  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  was 
taken  from  the  Legislatures,  and  given  to  the 
electors,  the  last  valid  reason  for  electing  State 
Legislatures  on  a  partisan  basis  disappeared.  Under 
the  strengthening  of  the  election  laws,  and  general 
advance  in  political  thought,  partisan  considerations 


Primary  Amendment  Defeated         221 

in   the   filling  of   these  offices   were   fast   disappear- 
ing.172 

The  1915  Legislature,  following  the  policy  of  the 
municipalities  and  of  the  two  previous  Legislatures 
to  its  logical  conclusion,  made  the  eleven  remaining 
partisan  State  offices  and  the  Legislature  non- 
partisan.173 

172  Of  the  80  Assemblymen  elected  in  1914  we  find  24  nominated 
as  Republicans;  8  as  Democrats  and  Republicans;  10  as  Pro- 
gressives and  Republicans;  6  as  Progressives,  Republicans,  and 
Democrats;  1  as  Progressive  and  Socialist;  1  as  Republican, 
Democrat  and  Prohibitionist;  1  as  Progressive,  Republican,  Demo- 
crat and  Prohibitionist;  1  as  Progressive,  Socialist,  Democrat, 
Republican  and  Prohibitionist;  10  as  Democrats;  7  as  Democrats 
and!  Progressives;  1  as  Prohibitionist,  Progressive,  and  Democrat; 
7  as  Progressives;  2  as  Socialists;  1  as  Progressive,  Republican, 
Democrat,  and  Socialist.  Of  the  twenty  State  Senators  elected 
that  year  there  were  2  nominated  as  Republicans;  2  as  Pro- 
gressives; 4  as  Democrats;  5  as  Republicans  and  Progressives; 
2  as  Democrats  and  Progressives;  2  as  Democrats,  Progressives 
and  Socialists;  1  as  Democrat,  Republican,  and  Prohibitionist; 
1  as  Progressive,  Democrat,  Republican,  and  Prohibitionist;  1  as 
Progressive,  Democrat,  and  Republican. 

ITS  Governor  Hiram  W.  Johnson  in  his  biennial  message  to 
the  Legislature  in  1915  said  of  non-partisanship  in  State  affairs: 
"Most  earnestly  do  I  suggest  to  you  that  our  State  officials  be 
elected  without  party  designation  of  any  sort.  The  advance  to 
non-partisanship  in  our  State  will  be  neither  an  extended  nor  a 
difficult  step.  The  political  units  that  compose  the  State  have 
all  adopted  non-partisanship  in  the  selection  of  their  officials.  The 
desideratum  of  a  government  is  efficiency — to  obtain  honest  and 
able  officials  devoted  exclusively  to  the  government.  To  govern 
well  is  to  govern  for  all,  not  for  a  part  or  a  class.  To  act  in  offi- 
cial capacity  should  be  to  act  solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  State, 
and  that  official  acts  best  who  forgets  every  other  consideration 
but  the  interest  9f  the  State.  Long  ago  this  lesson  was  learned 
by  cities.  In  California,  as  in  many  States,  all  of  our  cities  elect 
their  officials  without  regard  to  party  affiliations  at  all,  and  with- 
out party  designation.  Why?  Because  experience  taught  these 
cities  that  thus  they  obtained  better  officials  and  greater  effi- 
ciency. It  is  within  the  memory  of  all  of  us  that  these  cities 
formerly  elected  their  officials — city  clerks,  and  the  like — because 
of  their  partisan  affiliations.  Progress  in  city  government  swept 
from  existence  this  olu  system,  that  had  obtained  so  long,  and 
its  destruction  was  necessary  in  order  that  the  best  government 
be  obtained.  Recently  the  counties  of  the  State  adopted  the  plan 
that  has  been  in  vogue  in  cities,  and  elected  all  of  the  county 
officials  without  party  designation.  Inquiry  among  the  counties 
has  demonstrated  that  this  method  has  met  with  almost  uniyersal 
approval,  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  counties,  in  service,  will  be 
benefited  just  as  the  cities,  in  service,  have  been  benefited.  We 
now  suggest  applying  the  principle  to  the  State  as  well,  so  that 
candidates  for  State  positions  will  come  before  the  people  upon 


222         Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

The  referendum  was  invoked  against  this  1915 
non-partisan  provision,  and  an  extraordinarily  bitter 
campaign  was  carried  on  against  it. 

The  issue  was  decided  at  a  special  election, 
which  more  than  anything  else  seemed  in  its  results 
to  voice  a  protest  at  calling  special  elections  for  the 
consideration  of  such  matters.  Only  a  comparatively 
few  voters  went  to  the  polls,  and  of  the  eleven 
measures  submitted — several  of  them  propositions  which 
had  been  opposed  by  no  one — every  one  went  down 
to  defeat. 

Out  of  a  State  registration  of  1,220,000,  only  269,- 
648  voted  on  the  non-partisan  bill.  The  measure 
was  defeated  with  only  156,967  votes  cast  against 
it.  Had  the  issue  been  fought  out  at  a  general 
election  with  the  vote  cast  running  upwards  of 
1,000,000,174  if  one  may  judge  by  the  general  satis- 
faction with  the  non-partisan  provisions  for  munici- 
pal and  county  officials  and  for  State  judicial  and 
school  offices,  a  different  result  would  have  been 
registered. 

In  spite  of  the  small  vote  cast  the  opponents  of 
non-partisanship  insisted  that  the  people  of  Cali- 
fornia had  gone  definitely  on  record  against  the  non- 
partisan  idea.  Nothing  was  further  from  the  truth. 
However  the  partisan-inclined  made  the  defeat  of 

what  they  themselves  are,  not  upon  what  their  ancestors  were, 
that  they  will  ask  the  suffrages  of  the  electorate  upon  their  rec- 
ord or  lack  of  record;  their  merits  or  their  demerits,  rather  than 
upon  the  blind  partisanship  of  themselves  or  their  forefathers. 
There  is  nothing  thus  presented  to  you  that  seeks  to  destroy  or 
even  to  affect  political  parties  nationally." 

174  Out  of  a  registration  of  1,219,345,  961,868  votes  were  cast 
at  the  preceding  general  election,  November  3,  1914. 


Primary  Amendment  Defeated        223 

the  non-partisan  primary  their  talking  point,  and,  at 
the  1917  session,  when  the  Direct  Primary  bill  came 
up  for  consideration,  Assemblyman  Henry  Hawson 
of  Fresno  offered  an  amendment  which  provided  that 
no  primary  candidate  who  failed  to  secure  the  nomi- 
nation of  the  party  with  which  he  had  registered 
should  be  eligible  for  nomination  by  another  party.175 

The  members  of  the  1917  Legislature  didn't  quite 
realize  the  possibilities  of  the  Hawson  amendment, 
nor  suspect  the  complications  to  which  it  was  to 
lead.  But  the  amendment  had  a  partisan  ring,  which 
satisfied  the  pro-partisan  members,  and  appeared 
harmless  to  the  others.  So  Mr.  Hawson  had  his 
way;  his  amendment  was  adopted  and  became  law. 

At  the  1918  primary  election,  Mr.  Hawson  and 
the  remainder  of  the  State  awoke  to  the  possibilities 
of  his  amendment. 

At  the  primaries  James  Rolph,  Jr.,  received 
74,955  votes  for  Democratic  nomination  for  Gover- 
nor; Francis  J.  Heney,  60,662;  Thomas  Lee  Wool- 
wine,  28,879.  Mr.  Rolph  was  thus,  by  large  plurality, 
the  Democratic  choice  for  Governor.  He  was,  how- 
ever, registered  as  a  Republican,  and  ran  for  the 
Republican  nomination  as  well  as  for  the  Demo- 
cratic. But  while  the  Democrats  wanted  him  for 
their  candidate,  the  Republicans  did  not  want  him 

ITS  The  Hawson  amendment  was  in  full  as  follows:  "No  candi- 
date for  a  nomination  for  other  than  a  judicial,  school,  county, 
township  or  municipal  office  who  fails  to  receive  the  highest 
number  of  votes  for  the  nomination  of  the  political  party  with 
which  he  was  affiliated  thirty-five  days  before  the  date  of  the 
primary  election,  as  ascertained  by  the  secretary  of  State  from 
the  affidavit  of  registration  of  such  candidate  in  the  office  of  the 
county  clerk  of  the  county  in  which  such  candidate  resides,  shall 
be  entitled  to  be  the  candidate  of  any  other  political  party." 


224         Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

for  theirs.  He  failed  to  receive  the  Republican 
nomination.  Under  the  Hawson  amendment,  Mr. 
Rolph  having  been  denied  nomination  by  his  own 
party,  was  ineligible  for  nomination  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  The  Supreme  Court  decided  not  only 
that  he  was  ineligible,  but  also  that  as  neither  Mr. 
Heney  nor  Mr.  Woolwine  had  received  the  highest 
Democratic  vote,  neither  of  them  was  nominated. 
This  left  the  Democratic  party  without  a  candidate 
for  Governor. 

The  newspapers  of  the  time  give  indication  that 
the  Democrats  failed  to  see  any  humor  in  the 
situation. 

Then  it  developed  that  Mr.  Hawson  is  a  Demo- 
crat. Indeed,  at  the  primaries,  where,  under  his 
amendment,  nobody  got  the  Democratic  nomination 
for  Governor,  Mr.  Hawson  had  been  given  the 
Democratic  nomination  for  Congress.  Mr.  Hawson 
was  not,  however,  elected. 

This  unsatisfactory  result  of  Mr.  Hawson's  at- 
tempt to  read  a  little  partisanship  into  the  Direct 
Primary  law  was,  of  course,  considered  at  the  1919 
session  of  the  Legislature.  The  legislators,  divided  into 
four  groups — those  who  favored : 

(1)  Leaving    the    Direct    Primary    just    as    the 
Hawson  amendment  had  made  it. 

(2)  Permitting  the   several   parties   to   nominate 
any    one   whom    they    chose,    regardless    of    political 
affiliations. 

(3)  Making  all   nominations   strictly  partisan. 

(4)  Prohibiting  the  nomination  by  another  party 


Primary  Amendment  Defeated         225 

of  any  person  who  had  failed  to  secure  the  nomi- 
nation of  his  own  party  (the  Hawson  idea),  but 
providing  that  in  such  a  situation  the  party  com- 
mittee should  name  the  candidate  just  as  the 
committee  was  previously  given  power  to  fill  vacan- 
cies on  the  ticket  caused  by  the  death  of  a  candi- 
date between  a  primary  and  the  subsequent  election. 

This  last  view  prevailed.  It  was  really  nothing 
more  than  the  Hawson  plan,  with  the  further  pro- 
vision that  the  party  committee  should  correct  all 
such  complications  as  that  which  had  deprived  the 
Democrats  of  a  gubernatorial  candidate  in  1918. 

When  the  1921  Legislature  convened,  it  at  once 
became  evident  the  non-progressive  element,  of 
which  the  Better  America  Federation  was  typical, 
was  determined  to  inject  partisanship  into  the 
Direct  Primary  law.  The  issue  came  over  the 
measure  introduced  by  Assemblymen  White,  Smith 
and  Lee  mentioned  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter. 
Their  bill,  which  in  effect  denied  the  citizen  the 
privilege  of  becoming  a  candidate  for  nomination  of 
any  party  but  that  of  his  affiliation,  in  this  particular 
set  the  Direct  Primary  back  twelve  years  to  what 
it  was  when  first  adopted  in  1909. 

The  bill,  furthermore,  denied  to  the  voters  a 
privilege  which  had  been  theirs,  and  which  had  been 
frequently  exercised  by  them,  even  under  the  old 
convention  system,  namely,  the  privilege  of  an 
endorsement  by  one  party  of  a  candidate  registered 
in  another  party,  even  though  that  candidate  already 
held  the  office  to  the  best  interests  and  fullest  satis- 


226         Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

faction  of  all  the  voters  in  his  district.  By  this 
privilege  of  endorsement  by  both  parties  in  a  pri- 
mary, many  excellent  legislators  had  been  induced 
to  continue  in  service,  whereas  they  might  have 
been  unwilling  to  stand  the  strain  and  expense  of  a 
second  contest  for  election  on  a  strictly  partisan 
basis,  to  a  legislative  body  in  which  questions  of 
party  never  enter. 

The  Assembly  Committee  on  Election  Laws,  to 
which  this  bill  was  referred,  did  not  take  kindly  to 
it,  but  was  eventually  prevailed  upon  to  report  it 
out  without  recommendation. 

Once  it  got  back  to  the  Assembly  an  active 
campaign  was  organized  for  its  passage.  When  it 
finally  came  to  vote,  51  Assemblymen  cast  their 
ballots  for  it,  and  25  against.176.  Two  of  those  who 
voted  for  it,  Fellom  and  Windrem,  were,  however, 
strongly  opposed  to  it,  and  voted  with  the  majority 
only  to  protect  the  opposition  under  a  motion  to 
reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  bill  had  been 
passed.  Reconsideration  was,  however,  denied,  and 
the  bill  went  to  the  Senate. 

The  three  authors  of  the  measure — White,  Smith, 

lie  The  vote  by  which  the  White-Smith-Lee  partisan  amend- 
ment to  the  Direct  Primary  laws  passed  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Assemblymen  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bernard, 
Bishop,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Christian,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Critten- 
den,  Cummings,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Graves,  Greene,  Hart,  Heck, 
Heisinger,  Hornblower,  Hume,  Hurley,  Johnson,  Johnston,  Jones, 
G.  L. ;  Jones,  I. ;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A. ;  Lewis,  Loucks,  Lyons, 
Manning,  Mather,  McCloskey,  McDowell,  Merriam,  Parker,  Parkin- 
son, Pedrotti,  Pettis,  Powers,  Roberts,  Ross,  Smith,  Spalding, 
Stevens,  Weber,  Webster,  White,  Windrem,  Wright  H.  W. — 51. 

Against  the  bill — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badaracco,  Brough- 
ton,  Burns,  Cleary,  Eksward,  Gray,  Hawes,  Hughes,  Lee,  G.  W. ; 
Long,  McGee,  McKeen,  McPherson,  Mitchell,  Morrison,  Prender- 
gast,  Ream,  Rosenshine,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Warren,  Wendering, 
West,  and  Wright,  T.  M.— 25. 


Primary  Amendment  Defeated        227 

and  Lee — appeared  before  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Election  Laws  to  urge  that  their  bill  be  given  favor- 
able consideration,  or  that  at  least  it  be  passed  out 
without  recommendation  as  had  been  done  by  the 
Assembly  Committee.  But  after  the  presentation  of 
their  case  they  found  the  Senate  Committee  prac- 
tically a  unit  against  the  bill. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  measure,  one  of  the 
committee  inquired  from  its  authors  as  to  whether 
they  would  be  willing  to  amend  their  bill  so  as  to 
make  it  apply  only  to  candidates  for  offices  which 
were  in  their  nature  partisan,  namely,  Federal  offices, 
such  as  that  of  United  States  Senator  or  Representa- 
tive in  Congress.  But  the  three  authors  refused  to 
consider  any  such  limitation,  declaring  that  no 
political  party  should  be  permitted  to  nominate  any 
candidate  for  office  who  was  not  a  member  of  such 
party. 

Whereupon  members  of  the  committee  pointed 
out  that  the  refusal  of  the  bill's  supporters  to  have 
it  apply  only  to  offices  really  partisan  by  nature  made 
the  measure  impossible,  since  its  real  effect  was  to 
destroy  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
primary  law — free  choice,  on  the  part  of  the  electors, 
of  their  candidates  for  office;  and  on  motion,  sus- 
tained by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  committee,  the  bill 
was  laid  upon  the  table. 

According  to  the  rules  of  the  Senate  any  bill 
which  a  committee  refuses  to  report  may,  by  vote 
of  the  Senate,  be  taken  from  the  committee,  and 
brought  before  the  Senate  for  consideration.  Certain 


228         Primary  Amendment  Defeated 

supporters  of  this  measure  from  outside  the  Legis- 
lature sought  to  gain  support  among  the  Senators 
for  thus  withdrawing  the  bill  from  the  committee; 
but  after  careful  canvass  only  a  very  few  Senators 
of  either  party  were  found  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
measure.  Twenty-one  affirmative  votes  would  have 
been  required  to  secure  its  passage. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
THE  ANTI-LIQUOR  CAMPAIGN  OF  1920. 

The  1919  California  Legislature,  by  an  affirmative 
vote  of  47  in  the  Assembly  and  24  in  the  Senate, 
ratified  the  Eighteenth  (Prohibition)  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.177 

By  almost  the  same  vote  the  Legislature  passed 
the  effective  Prohibition  Enforcement  law,  which 
had  been  drawn  under  the  direction  of  the  late  Dr. 
D.  M.  Gandier.177a  This  measure  was  introduced  by 
Senator  M.  B.  Harris  of  Fresno  in  the  Senate.  It 
was  handled  in  the  Lower  House  by  Assemblyman 
T.  M.  Wright  of  San  Jose.178 

177  Th&  vote  (1919  session)  by  which  the  prohibition  amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution  was  ratified  by  the  California  Legis- 
lature was: 

In  the  Senate:  For  the  amendment — Senators  Anderson,  Ben- 
son, Boggs,  Breed,  Brown,  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Evans, 
Gates,  Harris,  Ingram,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King,  Lyon, 
Otis,  Rigdon,  Rominger,  Sample,  Thompson,  and  Tonkin — 24. 

Against  the  amendment — Senators  Burnett,  Canepa,  Carr,  F. 
M. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Flaherty,  Hart,  Inman,  McDonald,  Nea- 
lon,  Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey,  Shearer,  and  Slater — 15. 

In  the  Assembly:  For  the  amendment — Allen,  Ambrose,  Ander- 
son, Argabrite,  Baker,  Bennett,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Broughton, 
Brown,  J.  S.;  Browne,  M.  B.;  Carter,  Cleary,  Cummings,  Doran, 
Dorris,  Eden,  Fleming,  Graves,  Gray,  Hilton,  Hughes,  Kline,  Knight, 
Lindley,  Locke,  Martin,  Mather,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Miller,  D.  W. ; 
Miller,  H.  A.;  Oakley,  Odale,  Pettit,  Polsley,  Prendergast,  Price, 
Roberts,  Saylor,  Strother,  Wendering,  White,  Wickham,  Windrem, 
Wright,  H.  M.,  and  Wright,  T.  M. — 47. 

Against  the  amendment — Badaracco,  Bruck,  Calahan,  Collins, 
Easton,  Eksward,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Goetting,  Greene,  Hawes,  Hur- 
ley, Johnston,  Kasch,  Kenney,  Lamb,  Lewis,  Lynch,  Manning, 
McColgan,  McCray,  Mitchell,  Morrison,  Parker,  Ream,  Rose, 
Rosenshine,  Vicini,  and  Warren — 29. 

i77a  See  footnote  183,  page  236. 

ITS  The  vote  (1919  session)  by  which  the  Harris  enforcement 
bill  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  was: 

In   the  Senate:     For  the  Harris  bill — Senators   Benson,    Boggs, 


230        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

At  the  general  election,  which  followed  the  1919 
legislative  session,  November,  1920,  the  voters  by  a 
majority  of  65,062  repudiated  the  action  of  the  1919 
Legislature  in  passing  the  Harris  Prohibition  Enforce- 
ment Act,  and  reduced  the  anti-liquor  strength  in  the 
Assembly  from  the  dependable  vote  of  forty-seven  out 
of  eighty  members  at  the  1919  session,  to  thirty-six  at 
the  1921  session. 

In  no  other  State  was  there  such  an  astonishing 
change  in  public  opinion  on  prohibition  as  evidenced 
on  the  face  of  the  election  returns.  Ohio,  which  had 
defeated  prohibition  enforcement  legislation  by  a 
majority  of  26,734  the  year  before,  faced  about,  and 
in  1920  gave  a  majority  of  290,140  for  such  a 
measure.  Missouri's  majority  for  prohibition  enforce- 
ment at  the  1920  election  was  62,000.  Even  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  regarded  as  pro-liquor 
strongholds,  showed  important  gains  in  popular  sup- 
port of  prohibition  enforcement.  New  Jersey,  one 
of  the  three  States  which  refused  to  ratify  the 


Breed,  Brown,  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Evans,  Gates, 
Harris,  Ingram,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kehoe,  King,  Lyon,  Otis, 
Rigdon,  Rominger,  Sample,  Thompson,  and  Tonkin — 23. 

Against  the  Harris  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Burnett,  Canepa, 
Carr,  P.  M. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Flaherty,  Hart,  McDonald, 
Nealon,  Scott,  Shearer,  andl  Slater — 13. 

In  the  Assembly:  For  the  Harris  bill — Allen,  Ambrose,  Arga- 
brite,  Baker,  Bennett,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Brown,  J.  S.; 
Browne,  M.  B.;  Carter,  Cleary,  Cummings,  Doran,  Dorris,  Eden, 
Fleming,  Graves,  Hilton,  Hughes,  Hurley,  Kline,  Knight,  Lindley, 
Locke,  Martin,  Mather,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Miller,  D.  W.;  Miller, 
H.  A.;  Morris,  Oakley,  Odale,  Pettit,  Polsley,  Prendergast,  Price, 
Roberts,  Saylor,  Strother,  Wendering,  White,  Wickham,  Windrem, 
Wright,  H.  M.,  and  Wright,  T.  M,— 47. 

Against  the  Harris  bill — Anderson,  Badaracco,  Bruck,  Calahan, 
Collins,  Easton,  Eksward,  Gebhart,  Godsil,  Goetting,  Greene, 
Johnston,  Kasch,  Kenney,  Lamb,  Lewis,  Lynch,  Madison,  Man- 
ning, Mathews,  McColgan,  McCray,  Mitchell,  Ream,  Rose,  Stevens, 
Vicini,  and  Warren — 28. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        231 

Eighteenth  Amendment,  elected  a  Legislature 
pledged  to  strict  prohibition  enforcement.  Cali- 
fornia, in  apparent  reaction  against  prohibiton  was, 
at  the  1920  election,  the  one  important  exception 
among  the  States  of  the  Union. 

The  term  "apparent"  is  used  because  comparison 
of  the  1916  and  1920  election  returns  shows  there 
was  no  reaction  against  prohibition  in  California. 
On  the  contrary,  the  reaction  was  against  the  liquor 
traffic. 

The  pro-liquor  vote  in  California,  instead  of 
showing  the  increase  which  reaction  in  favor  of  the 
liquor  interests  would  have  involved,  fell  from  538,200 
in  1916  to  465,537  in  1920,  a  loss  for  the  pro-liquor 
groups  of  72,663. 

This  heavy  loss  came  to  the  liquor  forces  after 
what  was  unquestionably  the  best  financed  and  most 
effectively  conducted  campaign  they  have  ever 
carried  on  in  California.  That  their  vote  fell  off 
nearly  100,000  in  spite  of  their  extraordinary  and 
practically  unopposed  efforts  shows  their  weakness 
in  this  State  was  quite  equal  to  that  in  other  States, 
which,  everywhere  but  in  California,  resulted  in  their 
overwhelming  defeat. 

Had  the  anti-liquor  forces  in  California  held  their 
vote  of  436,639  in  1916,  and  added  to  it  the  pro- 
liquor  loss  of  72,663,  without  counting  their  natural 
gains  possible  for  a  four-year's  period,  the  vote  for 
the  Harris  Prohibition  Enforcement  law  would  have 
been  509,302,  and  the  1919  Legislature's  course  in 
passing  the  measure,  instead  of  being  repudiated, 


232        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

would  have  been  upheld  at  the  polls  with  a  majority 
above  40,000. 

But  the  pro-liquor  loss  was  not  added  to  the 
anti-liquor  vote  of  1916.  Indeed,  perplexing  as  it 
may  seem  to  those  who  have  been  following  pro- 
hibition gains  the  country  over,  the  California  anti- 
liquor  vote  of  436,639  for  absolute  prohibition  in 
1916,  fell  to  400,475  for  prohibition  enforcement  in 
1920.179  In  a  word,  the  anti-liquor  vote  of  1916  did 
not  find  expression  at  the  1920  polls.  Because  of  this 
failure  of  the  anti-liquor  forces  to  hold  their  own 
the  Harris  prohibition  enforcement  act  was  defeated, 
and  the  dependable  anti-liquor  majority  in  the  Lower 
House  of  the  Legislature  wiped  out.180 

179  The  reverse  of  this  statement,  namely,  that  the  pro-liquor 
forces  failed  to  add  to  their  1916  strength  the  anti-liquor  loss, 
does  not  hold,  for  the  reason  that  the  pro-liquor  group  carried 
on  a  most  effective  campaign  against  the  Harris  act,  and  for 
members  of  the  Assembly  who  were  in  sympathy  with  their 
policies.  The  pro-liquor  forces  got  out,  their  last  vote  so  far  as 
up-to-date  campaign  management  can  get  the  vote  out.  The 
anti-liquor  forces'  campaign  both  for  the  Harris  act  and  members 
of  the  Legislature  was  admittedly  poorly  directed,  inadequate  and 
blundering.  When,  less  than  two  months  before  election,  practical 
men  attempted  to  place  the  anti-liquor  campaign  on  an  effective 
basis,  they  found  it  impossible  to  overcome  in  a  period  of  seven 
weeks  the  inaction  and  blundering  of  nearly  two  years,  nor  could 
they  meeC  in  that  brief  period  the  two-years'  propaganda  of  the 
pro-liquor  groups  which  had  been  permitted  to  go  practically 
unanswered.  The  maximum  California  pro-liquor  vote  was  cast 
at  the  1920  election;  the  anti-liquor  vote  was  not. 

iso  So  far  as  the  liquor  line-up  was  concerned,  there  was 
practically  no  change  in  the  Senate.  To  begin1  with,  twenty  of 
the  forty  members  of  the  1921  Senate  were  named  at  the  1918 
election.  Of  the  twenty  elected  in  1920,  fourteen  were  old  mem- 
bers returned  on  their  legislative  records.  Four  of  the  six  changes 
were  in  districts  which  are  overwhelmingly  anti-liquor.  The 
members  named  from  these  districts,  Nelson,  Allen,  Arbuckle, 
and  Eden,  were  naturally  as  staunchly  for  prohibition  policies  as 
had  been  their  predecessors.  In  the  fifth  case,  Osborne  of  Santa 
Clara  County  was  elected  in  a  district  where  the  pro-liquor  forces 
suffered  serious  losses  over  their  1916  vote,  and  where,  even  with 
the  mismanagement  of  the  anti-liquor  campaign,  the  pro-liquor 
side  carried  the  county  with  a  majority  under  1000.  Had  the 
anti-liquor  vote  of  1916  been  cast  in  Santa  Clara  County,  plus 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        233 

In  this  chapter  will  be  traced  the  series  of  events 
which  brought  about  these  exceptional  reverses  for 
the  anti-liquor  forces  in  California,  that  we  may  have 
clear  understanding  of  the  controversy  in  the  1921 
Legislature  over  the  various  measures  affecting  the 
liquor  traffic. 

The  anti-liquor  program  at  the  previous  session 
(1919)  called  for  ratification  of  the  national  prohibi- 
tion amendment,  and  passage  of  effective  prohibition- 
enforcement  legislation.  The  "drys"  were  in  safe 
majority  in  each  house.181  The  amendment  was  rati- 
fied; the  necessary  prohibition-enforcement  law  enacted. 

the  pro-liquor  loss,  the  pro-liquor  group,  instead  of  carrying  the 
county  against  the  Harris  act,  would  have  been  defeated  with 
a  majority  of  4500  in  favor  of  that  measure.  Senator  Osborne, 
with  such  a  constituency  back  of  him,  voted  as  consistently 
with  the  anti-liquor  Senators  as  had  his  predecessor,  Senator 
Frank  H.  Benson.  The  other  Senatorial  district  to  change  its 
Senator,  the  Twenty-first  of  San  Francisco,  is  overwhelmingly 
pro-liquor.  Senator  Gpdsil,  the  new  member  from  this  district, 
voted  with  the  pro -liquor  group  always,  as  had  the  member 
whose  place  he  took,  the  late  Senator  Nealon. 

isi  The  anti-liquor  forces  were  even  stronger  in  the  1919  Legis- 
lature than  a  bare  statement  of  the  vote  indicates.  In  the  Senate, 
twenty-three  of  the  forty  members  voted  against  liquor  every  time 
they  voted.  Of  the  twenty-three,  thirteen  voted  on  every  roll-call. 
They  were  Benson,  Boggs,  Breed,  Carr,  W.  J.;  Duncan,  Ingram, 
Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Rigdon,  Sample,  Thompson,  Tonkin.  Ten 
of  the  twenty-three  voted  against  the  liquor  traffic  every  time 
they  voted,  but  were  absent  on  certain  roll-calls  which  are  shown 
in  the  tables.  They  were:  Brown,  absent  on  three  roll-calls; 
Dennett,  absent  on  four  roll-calls;  Evans,  absent  on  one  roll-call; 
Gates,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Harris,  absent  on  one  roll-call; 
Irwin,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Kehoe,  absent  on  two  roll-calls; 
Lyon,  absent  on  two  roll-calls;  Otis,  absent  on  four  roll-calls; 
Rominger,  absent  on  two  roll-calls.  On  the  "wet"  side,  only  two 
Senators — Crowley  and  Nealon — voted  on  every  roll-call  on  the 
side  of  liquor.  Five  others  voted  on  the  side  of  liquor  every  time 
they  voted,  but  were  absent  on  several  roll-calls.  They  were: 
Senators  Canapa,  Scott,  Flaherty,  McDonald,  all  absent  on  one 
roll-call.  Of  the  seven,  who  voted  against  prohibition  every  time 
they  voted,  six  were  from  San  Francisco;  one,  F.  M.  Carr,  was 
from  Alameda.  In  the  Assembly,  thirty-one  of  the  eighty  mem- 
bers voted  in  opposition  to  liquor  every  time  they  voted.  Of  the 
thirty-one,  eighteen  voted  on  every  one  of  the  twenty-five  roll- 
calls.  They  were:  Allen,  Ambrose,  Argabrite,  Bromley,  Brown, 
J.  Stanley;  Cleary,  Eden,  Kline,  Lindley,  Mather,  McKeen,  Mer- 


234        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

The  anti-liquor  leaders  did  more  than  put  these 
measures  through  the  Legislature.  Realizing  that  the 
enforcement  act  would  be  brought  to  popular  vote 
under  the  referendum,  in  drawing  the  measure  they 
provided  for  every  possible  objection  that  could  be 
brought  against  it. 

The  section  safeguarding  altar  wine,  for  example, 
was  drawn  by  a  Catholic  priest  and  passed  upon  by 
prominent  Catholics.  Manufacturers  of  flavoring  ex- 
tracts were  consulted  as  to  their  requirements  for 
continuation  of  legitimate  business.  Care  was  taken 
that  no  unduly  drastic  provision  that  the  public  might 
regard  as  unreasonable  be  included  in  the  bill. 

The  further  precaution  was  taken  in  the  1919 
Legislature  to  keep  notes  of  the  several  debates,  that 
the  various  objections  which  might  be  brought  up  later 
might  be  answered  from  the  record. 

riam,  Miller,  D.  W.;  Miller,  H.  A.;  Pettit,  Saylor,  Wondering, 
Wright,  T.  M.  Five  others  voted  against  liquor  every  time  they 
voted,  but  were  absent  on  one  roll-call.  They  were:  Broughton, 
Cummings,  Knight,  Oakley,  Wright,  H.  W.  Eight  voted  against 
the  liquor  traffic  every  time  they  were  recorded  as  voting,  but 
were  absent  on  more  than  one  roll-call.  They  were:  Brooks, 
absent  on,  four  roll-calls;  Doran,  absent  on  three  roll-calls;  Dorris, 
absent  on  three  roll-calls;  Flemming,  absent  on  four  roll-calls; 
Hughes,  absent  on  two  roll-calls;  Odale,  absent  on  four  roll-calls; 
Prendergast,  absent  on  five  roll-calls;  Strother,  absent  on  three 
roll-calls.  On  the  pro-liquor  side,  in  the  Assembly,  twenty  mem- 
bers voted  for  liquor  every  time  they  voted.  Three  of  them — 
Eksward,  Lewis  and  Manning— voted  every  time.  Curiously 
enough,  not  one  of  the  three  was  from  San  Francisco,  Eksward 
hailing  from  San  Mateo,  Lewis  from  Yuba,  and  Manning  from 
Marin.  The  seventeen  remaining  who  made  a  clear  record  in 
favor  of  the  liquor  traffic,  so  far  as  they  voted,  were:  Badaracco,, 
absent  on  one  roll-call;  Calahan,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Collins, 
absent  on  two  roll-calls;  Easton,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Greene, 
absent  on  one  roll-call;  Hawes,  absent  on  thirteen  roll-calls; 
Kasch,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Kenney,  absent  on  two  roll-calls; 
Lamb  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Madison,  absent  on  five  roll-calls; 
McColgan,  absent  on  one  roll-call;  Mitchell,  absent  on  ten  roll- 
calls'  Morris,  absent  on  ten  roll-calls;  Morrison,  absent  on  seven 
roll-calls;  Stevens,  absent  on  eight  roll-calls;  Vicini,  absent  on 
two  roll-calls;  Warren,  absent  on  two  roll-calls. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        235 

For  example,  it  was  recognized  that  an  attempt 
would  be  made  to  turn  Labor  against  the  bill  on  the 
ground  that  certain  "dry"  members  of  the  Legislature 
had  opposed  labor  measures.  Complete  records  of  the 
votes  of  all  the  members  on  labor  measures  were 
accordingly  kept.  These  records  showed  that  the  effec- 
tive opponents  of  labor  policies  had  voted  with  the 
pro-liquor  group,  while  the  most  effective  supporters 
of  labor  measures  were  on  the  prohibition  side. 

In  the  same  way,  the  exposure  and  condemnation 
by  Catholic  members  of  those  who  attempted  to  defeat 
the  enforcement  act  by  falsely  alleging  that  provision 
was  not  made  in  it  for  altar  wine,  were  published  in 
the  official  paper  of  the  "dry"  forces,  The  Liberator,182 

182  The  California  Liberator,  official  publication  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League,  in  its  issue  for!  April,  1919,  for  example,  contains 
the  following  reference  to  these  debates:  "Before  the  Harris 
enforcement  act  was  submitted  to  the  Assembly,  a  priest  of  the 
Catholic  Church  and  other  Catholics  had  read  it  and  had  sug- 
gested provisions, — which  were  made  part  of  the  measure — that 
made  the  manufacture,  sale,  storage  and  use  of  wine  for  sacra- 
mental purposes  absolutely  secure.  The  bill  provides  that  'nothing 
in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  rendering  unlawful,  the  sale  or 
furnishing  of  wine  for  sacramental  purposes.'  The  manufacture 
and  storage  of  wine  for  such  purposes  is  also  provided.  In  spite 
of  these  provisions,  the  'wets',  when  the  Harris  bill  came  up  for 
passage  in  the  Assembly  on  March  21,  insisted  on  an  amendment 
further  to  safeguard  altar  wines.  The  amendment  was  unneces- 
sary. But  the  'drys',  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  consented 
to  such  an  amendment  as  the  'wets'  suggested,  although  by 
accepting  it  they  delayed  the  bill's  passage  several  days.  When 
the  measure  came  up  for  passage  the  following  Friday,  the  'wets' 
proposed  another  amendment  for  the  'protection  of  altar  wine'. 
This  was  carrying  their  solicitude  for  altar  wine  a  trifle  too  far. 
Assemblyman  Prendergast,  himself  a  Catholic,  let  it  be  known 
that  he  considered  it  an  outrage  that  the  liquor  interests  should, 
after  the  sacrament  of  the  mass  had  been  amply  protected,  con- 
tinue to  use  the  ssuired  institution  as  pretext  to  delay  the  passage 
of  a  necessary  and  meritorious  measure.  Mr.  Prendergast  showed 
that  when  the  bill  had  been  before  the  Assembly  several  days 
before,  although  in  its  original  form  there  could  have  been  no 
reasonable  question  on  that  score,  it  had  been  amended  in  terms 
so  plain  that  even  a  'wet'  could  understand  that  altar  wine  was 
not  brought  under  prohibition  provisions.  'And  yet,'  concluded 
Mr.  Prendergast,  'they  come  here  at  this  late  hour,  after  this 


236        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

the  intention  being  to  use  these  statements  during  the 
referendum  campaign,  to  meet  the  reckless  charges  that 
under  the  Harris  prohibition  enforcement  act  adequate 
provision  was  not  made  for  the  sacrament. 

The  1919  Legislature  closed  not  only  with  the 
prohibition  program  successfully  carried  out,  but  with 
every  point  at  which  that  program  might  be  attacked 
safeguarded. 

Furthermore,  to  carry  out  their  well  considered 
plans  to  defeat  referendum  of  the  Harris  law,  the  anti- 
liquor  forces  had  the  most  effective  political  organiza- 
tion ever  built  up  in  California.  This  organization, 
functioning  through  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  was  the 
result  of  years  of  careful  planning  on  the  part  of  Dr. 
D.  M.  Gandier,  183  and  the  aids  who  had  joined  with 

feature  has  been  satisfactorily  adjusted,  and  attempt  further  to 
delay  by  asserting  that  altar  wine  is  not  protected.  As  a 
Catholic,  I  resent  such  tactics,  and  such  employment  of  the  name 
of  that  sacred  institution  of  my  church,  the  mass,  in  the  interest 
of  saloon  keepers  and  whiskey  s_ellers.'  Assemblyman  Wendering, 
also  a  Catholic,  protested  as  vigorously  as  did  Mr.  Prendergast 
against  the  use  to  which  the  liquor  interests  were  putting  altar 
wine.  He  showed  that  representatives  of  the  Knights  of  Columbus 
had  examined  the  bill,  and  were  perfectly  satisfied  that  altar  wine 
was  fully  safeguarded.  After  such  a  showing  from  Catholic 
members,  the  'wets'  could  not  continue  this  particular  line  of 
attack." 

183  Dr.  I>.  M.  Gandier  first  appeared  at  the  California  Legis- 
lature in  1909,  when  he  was  sent  to  Sacramento  by  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League  to  put  through  a  county  local  option  law.  Although 
he  failed  of  his  mission  that  year,  he  established  connections  which 
made  local-option  legislation  possible  two  years  later.  After  the 
passage  of  the  Local  Option  law  in  1911,  Gandier  became  the 
recognized  head  of  the  prohibition  forces  in  California  functioning 
through  the  Anti- Saloon  League.  From  legislative  representative 
of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  he  was  advanced  to  State  Superin- 
tendent, a  position  which  he  held  until  the  time  of  his  death, 
although  he  continued  his  legislative  work  at  Sacramento  (See 
Stories  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,  1911,  1913,  and  1915). 
Gandier  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  supporters  of  prohibition 
and  the  respect  of  its  opponents.  His  departure  from  California 
when  the  success  of  plans  for  prohibition-enforcement  demanded 
his  presence  here,  was  the  best  thing  that  could  have  happened 
for  the  pro-liquor  forces;  it  was  the  worst  thing  that  could  have 
happened  for  the  anti  -liquor  campaign,  and,  as  the  sequel  showed, 
himself.  ..;  iJtjfelf 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        237 

him  in  their  successful  drive  against  the  liquor  interests. 
Control  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  meant  control  of 
California's  exceptionally  efficient  anti-liquor  organiza- 
tion, and  administration  of  the  large  fund  which  church 
people  were  contributing  to  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
to  break  the  liquor  traffic.  The  outcome  of  the  1918 
campaign,  and  the  accomplishment  of  this  organization 
at  the  1919  Legislature,  at  once  made  it  an  important 
factor  in  California  politics. 

Practical  men  on  both  sides  recognized  that  the 
battle  for  prohibition  enforcement  would  be  quite  as 
important  as  that  for  ratification  of  the  national  pro- 
hibition amendment.  So  long  as  the  anti-liquor  organ- 
ization remained  intact,  the  chances  for  defeat  of  the 
Harris  Enforcement  Act  were  slight.  Effective  "drys" 
recognized  that  the  important  thing  in  the  interest  of 
prohibition  enforcement  in  California,  and  incidentally 
of  world  prohibition,  was  to  keep  up  their  organization. 
Effective  wets  no  doubt  recognized  the  importance, 
from  their  standpoint,  of  slowing  down  the  Anti-Saloon 
League's  work  and  depriving  it  of  the  counsel  and 
service  of  men  who  had  made  it  effective. 

As  the  lines  of  the  1919-20  campaign  for  prohibi- 
tion enforcement  tightened,  anti-liquor  workers  were 
dismayed  to  find  a  movement  started  to  get  Dr.  Gandier 
out  of  the  State  at  a  time  when  his  presence  here  was 
needed  as  it  never  had  been  before. 

The  first  suggestion  was  that  he  be  sent  to  Europe 
in  the  interest  of  world  prohibition.  He  actually  started 
for  New  York  on  that  mission,  but  trouble  over  pass- 
ports prevented  his  crossing  the  Atlantic.  He  had 


238        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

scarcely  returned  to  California  to  the  work  awaiting 
him,  when  the  idea  was  advanced  that,  in  the  interest 
of  world  prohibition,  he  should  go  to  Japan  and  China. 
The  trip  was  to  be  made  a  sort  of  "holiday"  for  the 
good  of  his  health.  It  proved  a  most  disastrous  "holi- 
day" for  the  cause  of  prohibition,  and  a  cruelly  disas- 
trous "holiday"  for  him. 

Gandier  had  for  months  been  breaking  under  the 
strain  of  the  various  campaigns  which  he  had  directed. 
On  his  return  from  his  proposed  European  trip,  the 
first  symptoms  of  the  terrible  malady  which  was  to 
result  in  his  death  were  plainly  discernible.  His  place 
was  in  a  hospital,  not  in  the  then  unsettled  Orient. 
He  himself  recognized  this,  and  at  one  time  had  prac- 
tically decided  to  ignore  the  insistent  suggestion  that 
he  go  into  Asia;  place  himself  in  the  hands  of  com- 
petent physicians,  to  the  end  that,  with  needed  rest 
and  competent  medical  and,  if  necessary,  surgical  atten- 
tion, he  could  be  made  fit  for  the  1919-20  campaign. 
His  disinterested  advisors  bluntly  told  him  that  prohi- 
bition was  on  trial  in  the  United  States;  that  its  adop- 
tion by  other  countries  hinged  upon  its  enforcement 
here;  that  in  the  interest  of  world  prohibition  his  place 
was  in  California. 

But  in  the  end,  Gandier  yielded  to  the  insistent 
clamor  that  he  go  to  Asia  for  a  "rest"  and  to  advance 
the  cause  of  prohibition  in  those  far  lands.  Had  he 
adhered  to  his  first  decision  to  remain  in  California 
and  place  himself  in  the  hands  of  a  physician,  he  would 
probably  be  alive  today  with  twenty  years  of  useful 
work  ahead  of  him. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        239 

He  went  to  Asia.     He  returned  to  die. 

When  Gandier  left  the  State,  Dr.  Arthur  H.  Briggs, 
as  Superintendent  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  for  North- 
ern California,  and  Rev.  S.  T.  Montgomery,  as  Super- 
intendent of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  for  Southern 
California,  assumed  charge  of  that  organization,  and 
hence  of  the  anti-liquor  campaign. 

The  pro-liquor  groups,  from  the  day  the  Eighteenth 
Amendment  had  been  ratified,  had  been  organizing  to 
have  it  set  aside  if  possible,184  to  block  prohibition 
enforcement  if  they  could  not  repeal  it.  Their  move- 
ment was  nation-wide,  and  was  particularly  well  repre- 
sented and  organized  in  California.  It  soon  became 
apparent  that,  so  far  as  meeting  this  well-considered 
pro-liquor  campaign  was  concerned,  the  Anti-Saloon 
League  organization  was  slowing  down. 

The  pro-liquor  management  was  plainly  making  a 
drive  for  Catholic  and  Labor  support.185  This  move, 

184  The  prospectus  of  an  organization  to  repeal  the  Eighteenth 
Amendment  which   had  its  headquarters   in  the  Munsey  building, 
Washington,    D.    C.,    contained    the    following:      "Every    member 
signs!  a  pledge  of  somewhat  the  following!  form:    'I  hereby  pledge 
my  word  that  so   long  as  I  remain  a  member  of  this   League,   I 
will   not  vote  for  any   candidate   for   the   office  of   United    States 
Senator   or  Member  of  Congress   or   Member  of  the   State  Legis- 
lature unless  such  candidate  announces  or  promises   that  he  will 
favor    the    repeal    of    the    recent    prohibition    amendment    to    the 
Federal    Constitution.'      The    prospectus    concluded:      'The    prohi- 
bitionists, believing  that  victory  is  won,   have  turned  their  atten- 
tion   to   their  anti-tobacco   crusade  and   to   their  work   for  prohi- 
bition in  other  countries  and  here  they  are  somewhat  disorganized 
and  are  so  flushed  with  victory   that  this  seems  a  good  time  to 
recover  our  rights.'  " 

185  Comparison  of  the  "wet"   and  "dry"  votes  of  the  1914  and 
1919  campaigns,   showed  that  the  peak  of  the  Protestant-prohibi- 
tion vote  had  been  reached  in  1914;  that  this  vote  did  not  exceed 
365,000.     As  500,000  votes  were  required  to  give  a  majority  for  a 
prohibition    measure,    it    was    evident    that    approximately    150,000 
votes    had    to    be    secured    from    outside    traditional    prohibition 
circles.     Gandier  and   his   aids  worked  on  this   theory  during  the 
1917-18  campaigns  to  closet  the  saloons,  and  to  elect  a  Legislature 


240        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

as  has  been  shown,  had  been  anticipated  when  the  1919 
Legislature  was  in  session.  The  "dry"  organization 
was  well  prepared  to  meet  this  attack.  But  perplexed 
prohibitionists  could  not  see  that  the  attacks  were  being 
met.186 

that  would  ratify  the  Eighteenth  Amendment.  Particular  appeal 
was  made  to  Catholic  and  Labor  groups,  with. 'such  success  that 
the  balance  of  power  which  these  groups  held  was  thrown,  on  the 
prohibition  side.  Dr.  Gandier  on  one  occasion  told  the  writer  that 
in  his  judgment  the  man  who  had  done  most  to  influence  doubting 
voters  to  cast  their  ballots  for  prohibition  in  California,  was  Rev. 
Father  M.  J.  Whyte,  pastor  of  the  Catholic  Church  at!  Sunnyvale. 
Father  Whyte's  influence  for  prohibition,  was,  before  the  breaking 
down  of  the  anti -liquor  organization,  felt  from  the  Oregon  line  to 
Mexico.  Men  and  women  closely  affiliated  with  organized  labor, 
shown  that  the  'drys'  were  their  consistent  friends,  threw  their 
influence  to  the  prohibition  side  in  1917-18,  and  had  much  to  do 
with  tha  prohibition  successes  of  those  years.  The;  first  objective 
of  the  1919-20  pro-liquor  campaign  was  to  win  these  groups  away 
from  the  prohibition  side. 

186  In  a  letter  under  date  of  Junet  11,  1919,  Dr.  Josiah  Sibley, 
pastor  of  the  Calvary  Presbyterian  Church  of  San  Francisco, 
asked  the  writer  for  data  to  confute  the  statements  that  were 
being  circulated  that  the  prohibition  members  of  the  1919  Legis- 
lature had  made  black  records  on  labor  legislation.  The  following 
reply  was  sent  Dr.  Sibley: 

"In  the  1919  Senate,  ten  test  votes  were  takert  on  so-called 
labor  measures.  The  two  Senators  who  registered  the  worst 
records  on  these  votes  from  the  standpoint  of  labor,  voted 
against  ratification  of  the  national  prohibition  amendment, 
and  against  the  Harris  bill  providing  for  enforcement  of  pro- 
hibition. On  ten  labor  test  roll-calls,  the  two  could  have 
cast  a  possible  20  votes.  Their  record  was,  3  votes  for  labor, 
15  votes  against  labor  and  two  failures  to  vote.  There  were  in 
the  Senate  ten  test  roll-calls  on  the  liquor  question.  The 
two  Senators  who  made  the  worst  labor  records — from  Labor's 
standpoint — had  20  votes  on  liquor  issues.  They  cast  6  votes 
against  liquor,  9  votes  for  liquor,  with  five  failures  to  vote. 
In  the  Assembly,  the  'wet'  opposition  to  Labor  was  more 
pronounced  in  comparison  with  'dry*  opposition  than  in  the 
Senate.  I  find,  however,  that  the  'wets'  have  given  wide 
distribution  to  a  pamphlet  which  sets  forth  that  only  three 
members  of  the  Legislature  voted  against  Labor  every  time, 
and  the  three  were  prohibitionists.  There  is  enough  truth 
in  this  statement  to  get  by,  but  it  by  no  means  tells  the 
whole  story.  The  three  Assemblymen  referred  to  do  have 
the  distinction  of  being  the  only  ones  out  of  120  members 
of  the  Legislature  to  vote  against  Labor  on  every  roll-call.  It 
is  true,  too,  that  they  had  the  support  of  the  'drys'  at  the 
1918  election.  It  is  equally  true  that  they  were  the  leaders 
of  the  reactionary  group  in  the  Assembly  which  stood  out 
against  the  election  of  H.  W.  "Wright,  the  dry  candidate  for 
Speaker.  Furthermore,  they  were  among  the  least  dependable 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        241 

The  same  was  true  of  the  pro-liquor  people's  efforts 
to  get  publicity  by  attempting  to  put  the  ratification  of 
the  Eighteenth  Amendment  to  referendum  vote.  This 
wet  publicity  move  could  have  been  readily  blocked, 
but  was  not.  Such  examples  of  apparent  inability  to 
meet  the  campaign  which  the  pro-liquor  people  were 
forcing  upon  the  beginning-to-be  demoralized  anti- 
liquor  forces  brought  sharp  criticism. 

"What  has  become  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League," 
wrote  Senator  M.  B.  Harris  of  Fresno,  author  of  the 

of  the  'dry'  supporters.  At  times  when  the  'drys'  needed 
every  vote,  these  three  Assemblymen  sometimes  failed  to 
vote,  and  several  times  voted  'wet'.  On  twenty-five  roll-calls 
affecting  anti-liquor  legislation,  one  of  the  three  voted  20 
'dry',  3  'wet',  and  failed  to  vote  2;  the  second  voted  20 
'dry',  1  'wet,'  failed  to  vote  4;  the  third  voted  17  'dry*,  7 
'wet',  failed  to  vote  1.  Two  of  the  three  had  to  be  watched 
constantly  and  we  probably  did  more  worrying1  about  how 
they  were  going  to  vote  than  we  did  over  all  of  the  other 
'dry'  members  combined.  Personally,  I  have,  with  others 
who  stand  for  good  government,  always  protested  against 
'dry'  support  being  given  such  men.  You  can  see  from  our 
experience  with  the  three  Assemblymen  in  question,  how 
'dry'  support  of  unworthy  candidates  involves  the  whole  pro- 
hibition movement.  But  we  must  not  without  protest  permit 
the  attitude  of  all  the  'drys'  in  the  Assembly  on  labor 
measures  to  be  fixed  by  the  records  of  three  reactionaries. 
A  broader  test  must  be  applied.  In  the  Assembly,  there 
were  ten  test  roll-calls  on  labor  issues.  On  these  ten  roll- 
calls  eleven  members  made,  from  Labor's  standpoint,  very  bad 
records.  Five  of  the  eleven  did  not  vote  for  Labor  at  all; 
six  voted  for  Labor  on  one  ballot  only.  Included  with  the 
eleven  are,  of  course,  the  three  who  have  already  been  con- 
sidered. The  list  contains  only  one  other  'dry',  and,  by  the 
way,  the  only  'dry'  of  the  four  who  made  a  clear  record 
against  liquor.  The  other  seven  members  were  all  'wet'.  Three 
of  them  were  the  leaders  of  the  'wet'  side,  and  directed  the 
fight  for  the  'wets'  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly.  The  eleven 
had  110  possible  votes  on  the  ten  labor  roll-calls.  They 
voted  6  times  for  Labor,  78  times  against  Labor,  26  times 
not  voting.  The  eleven,  on  25  test  votes  on  liquor  issues, 
had  275  possible  votes.  They  voted  against  liquor  86  times, 
for  liquor  161  times,  28  times  not  voting.  Included  in  the 
86  anti-liquor  votes  of  this  anti-labor  eleven  were  57  votes 
cast  by  the  three  reactionaries  considered  above.  These  57 
votes  eliminated  from  the  86  'dry'  votes  cast  by  the  11  anti- 
labor  Assemblymen,  and  we  have  for  the  group  but  29  'dry' 
votes.  If  we  deduct  from  the  twenty-nine  the  25  votes  of 
the  only  clear  record  'dry'  of  the  eleven,  we  have  only  4 
'dry'  votes  from  this  anti-labor  group.  The  seven  anti-labor 


242        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

Harris  Prohibition  Enforcement  Act,  under  date  of 
June  11,  1919.  "The  officials  of  this  organization  in 
this  county  have  received  no  advice  from  the  State 
organization,  and  so  far  as  they  know  the  State  organ- 
ization has  ceased  to  act.  I  have  been  impressed  for  a 
long  time  with  the  great  importance  of  a  closer  organ- 
ization and  a  more  intensive  campaign  now  and  for 
some  time  to  come  than  have  ever  yet  been  attempted 
by  the  Anti-Saloon  people.  I  am  astonished  and  cha- 
grined at  their  apparent  indifference.  To  all  intents 
and  purposes,  so  far  as  California  is  concerned,  they 
have  deserted  the  ship." 

Assemblymen  who  cast  these  four  dry  votes,  had  a  possible 
175  votes  on  anti -liquor  measures.  They  voted  against  liquor 
4  times,  for  liquor  150  times,  not  voting  21  times.  In  the 
Assembly,  only  three  members  voted  for  liquor  on  every  one 
of  the  twenty-five  roll-calls.  These  three  'perfectly  wet' 
Assemblymen  had  a  possible  30  votes  on  Labor  test  roll-calls. 
They  voted  7  times  for  Labor,  21  times  against  Labor,  were 
absent  on  two  roll-calls.  In  view  of  these  facts,  my  dear 
Sibley,  I  do  not  think  the  'wet'  publicity  bureau  can  main- 
tain its  position  that  Labor  had  the  undivided  support  of 
the  'wets'  at  the  1919  Legislature.  And  yet,  from  one  end  of 
California  to  the  other,  Labor  has  the  idea  that  the  'wets' 
made  clear  pro-labor  records  at  the  1919  Session.  I  do 
want  to  say  a  word  of  'dry'  support  of  labor  measures.  In 
the  Senate,  the  two  dependable  pro-labor-legislation  leaders 
we_re  'dry',  had  been  elected  as  'drys',  and  voted  'dry'.  Labor's 
chief  fight  in  the  Senate  was  the  so-called  anti-injunction 
bill.  The  five  'Substantial  backers  of  that  bill  in  the  Senate, 
whose  support  prevented  the  contest  for  it  from  becoming 
contemptible,  were  'dry'.  In  the  Assembly,  of  the  two  de- 
pendable leaders  in  the  debates  for  labor  legislation,  one 
was  'dry'  and  the  other  'wet',  so  honors  were  evenly  divided 
there.  But  the  three  effective  leaders  of  the  group  in  opposi- 
tion to  Labor,  were  also  the  three  effective  leaders  of  the 
'wet'  forces.  These  three  led  the  opposition  to  prohibition 
legislation,  and  they  led  the  opposition  to  labor  legislation. 
As  for  the  fifteen  best  records  on  labor  measures,  from 
Labor's  standpoint,  made  in  the  Assembly,  6  were  made  by 
'drys'  and  9  by  'wets'.  And  yet  Labor  is  being  schooled  to 
believe  that  the  'drys'  are  all  opposed  to  labor  measures. 
You  may  find  this  useful  in  combating  the  misinformation 
which  the  'wets'  are  so  industriously  putting  out." 

Although  a  copy  of  this  letter  to  Dr.  Sibley  was  sent  the 
acting  head  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  for  Northern  California, 
no  use  of  the  data  contained  therein  seems  to  have  been  made  by 
that  organization. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        243 

Other  "dry"  leaders  throughout  the  State  similarly 
expressed  their  astonishment  at  the  unlooked-for 
change  of  policy  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League. 

Another  matter  that  caused  more  or  less  criticism 
was  the  failure  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  management 
to  call  a  State  convention  of  the  dry  forces  to  plan 
the  1920  campaign,  as  had  been  done  with  the  best  of 
results  in  1914,  1916  and  1918. 

As  month  followed  month  without  a  convention 
being  called,  and  without  appreciable  progress  being 
made  against  the  aggressive  and  most  effective  cam- 
paign which  the  pro-liquor  forces  were  carrying  on, 
opinion  increased  that,  unless  action  could  be  secured 
through  those  in  charge  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League, 
then  the  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  or 
some  similar  body  should  call  a  meeting  to  plan  a 
campaign,  and,  if  that  failed,  effective  supporters  of 
prohibition  should  meet  the  situation  independent  of 
all  existing  organizations. 

Such  a  course  was  seriously  considered  when  the 
State  Legislature  met  at  Sacramento  in  extra  session 
in  November,  1919.  While  those  who  advised  against 
such  a  course  recognized  that  valuable  time  was  being 
lost,  they  pointed  out  that  Dr.  Gandier  was  expected 
back  from  Asia  about  the  first  of  the  year,  and  held 
that  no  action  should  be  taken  until  his  return.  This 
view  finally  prevailed.  Had  Dr.  Gandier  returned 
well  and  fit,  such  counsel  that  further  delayed  the 
campaign  would  have  been  good.  As  he  returned 
broken  in  health  and  out  of  touch  with  the  situation, 
it  proved  eventually  to  be  very  bad  advice. 


244        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

Gandier  reached  California  early  in  January,  1920, 
too  ill  to  grasp  the  fact  that  the  Anti- Saloon  League 
was  no  longer  the  effective  organization  which  he  had 
left  nine  months  before;  too  weak  of  body — unable  to 
use  his  head,  as  he  himself  expressed  it — to  give  the 
situation  the  vigorous  attention  which  alone  could  have 
averted  the  defeat  for  which  the  anti-liquor  forces  had, 
for  nine  months,  been  headed. 

So  the  drift  continued.  Those  who  were  in  control 
of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  organization  let  it  be  under- 
stood that  Gandier  was  in  the  counsels  of  the  campaign, 
and  held  out  the  hope  that  he  would  soon  be  back  in 
full  leadership.  This  reassured  many,  for  all  had  con- 
fidence in  Gandier.  But  Gandier  was  not  back  in  the 
campaign,  and  even  while  the  March  Liberator187  was 
being  distributed,  announcing  his  return  to  the  work, 
he  was  writing  to  a  friend,  under  date  of  March  29, 
that  the  representative  of  the  Liberator  had  been  misled 
as  to  his  condition  by  seeing  him  on  his  best  day,  that 
the  Liberator's  statement  was  too  optimistic,  that  "a 
little  effort  to  use  my  head  soon  let  me  know  that  I 
have  to  stay  out  of  the  work  for  a  time." 

In  spite  of  this,  the  dry  forces  were  led  to  believe 
that  Dr.  Gandier  was  back  on  the  job,  and  that  all  was 
well  once  more  with  the  anti-liquor  organization. 

The  "dry"  campaign  continued  to  drift.     As  late  as 


187  The  California  Liberator,  official  publication  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League  for  California,  in  its  March  issue  for  1920  said: 
"There  is  reason  for  deepest  gratitude  to  God  in  the  fact  that  Dr. 
Gandier  is  gaining  strength  every  day.  He;  walks  about  a  little 
and  is  taking:  solid  food.  He  is  now  irf  the  counsels  of  the  cam- 
paign and,  please  God,  we  will  soon  have  him  back  again  in  full 
leadership." 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        245 

March  1,  1920,  practical  "drys"  were  for  giving  the 
management  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  one  more 
chance,  and  if  action  could  not  be  had  from  that 
organization,  favored  forming  an  independent  organ- 
ization to  direct  the  anti-liquor  activities. 

In  such  a  confused  situation  there  could  be  no 
initiative  on  the  part  of  the  anti-liquor  forces  in  shaping 
the  campaign.  In  1914,  1916  and  1918  the  "drys"  had 
met  in  convention,  decided  upon  a  campaign,  selected 
their  leaders,  and  forced  the  issue.  In  1920  there  was 
no  such  convention,  no  plan  of  campaign.  Efforts  of 
practical  "drys"  to  have  a  convention  called  were,  on 
one  pretext  or  another,  discouraged.  The  pro-liquor 
forces,  on  the  other  hand,  took  the  initiative,  shaped 
the  campaign  so  far  as  it  was  shaped,  and  the  anti- 
liquor  groups  accepted  the  situation  because  there  was 
nothing  else  they  could  do. 

It  had  early  become  apparent  that  the  anti-liquor 
forces  would  be  called  upon: 

(1)  To  defend  the  Harris  Prohibition  Enforcement 
law,  held  up  under  the  referendum; 

(2)  To  elect  Congressmen  committed  to  enforce- 
ment of  prohibition; 

(3)  To  elect  a  United  States  Senator  so  committed 
in  place  of  Senator  James  D.  Phelan; 

(4)  To  defend  their  majority   in  the   Legislature 
against  the  attacks  of  the  pro-liquor  group. 

The  importance  of  sending  a  "dry"  vote  in  the 
United  States  Senate  in  place  of  the  "wet"  vote  repre- 
sented by  Senator  James  D.  Phelan,  appealed  strongly 


246        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

to  the  California  opponents  of  liquor.  When,  there- 
fore, in  the  summer  of  1919,  William  Kent  announced 
his  candidacy  on  a  prohibition  enforcement  platform 
for  the  Republican  nomination  for  United  States  Sen- 
ator, practical  "drys"  saw  in  his  candidacy  opportunity 
to  recover  much  of  the  ground  they  had  lost. 

As  a  member  of  Congress,  Mr.  Kent  had  been  a 
most  effective  supporter  of  prohibition  measures  which 
the  Anti-Saloon  League,  in  preparing  the  way  for  con- 
stitutional prohibition,  had  forced  through  Congress.188 
During  the  1916  anti-liquor  campaign  in  California  he 
had  rendered  fine  assistance  at  a  time  when  it  was 
greatly  needed.  For  years,  not  only  in  California,  but 
throughout  the  nation,  his  time,  his  fortune  and  his 
fine  abilities  had  been  devoted  to  betterment  work. 

With  the  announcement  of  his  candidacy,  Mr.  Kent 
sent  a  communication  to  the  State  press  in  which  he 
unequivocally  went  on  record  for  enforcement  of  the 
prohibition  provisions  of  the  Federal  constitution  and 
statutes.189  Furthermore,  Mr.  Kent  recognized  that 

188  For  Mr.  Kent's  effective  support  in  Congress  of  Anti-Saloon 
League  policies,    Rev.   Edwin   C.    Dinwiddie,   who  for  many  years 
was    Legislative    Superintendent    of    the    Anti-Saloon    League    at 
"Washington,   wrote  Mr.  Kent  as  follows:     "I  want  to  thank  you, 
both   personally  and   on   behalf   of   the   people   in   the   church   and 
temperance  committees  and  organizations  which  I  have  the  honor 
to    represent    in    national    legislative    affairs,    for   your   support   of 
the   interstate   liquor   shipment   bill   which   we   have   been   urging. 
We   were   glad   to   note    your   vote    in   favor   of   the   bill   when    it 
originally    passed    the    House    on    February   8,    and    that    you    re- 
affirmed your  interest  in  the  legislation  by  voting  to  pass  it  over 
the    Presidential   veto.      Please    be   assured   that   our   constituency 
throughout  the  country  will  hold  you  in  grateful  remembrance  for 
your  stand  in  support  of  this  righteous  measure." 

189  Mr.  Kent's  statement  to  the  press  read  as  follows:    "I  have 
always  seen  and   realized  the  social,   political  and  economic  evils 
of   the   liquor    trade.     I   used   to   believe   that   the   remedy   lay    in 
local    option    and    anti-saloon    legislation,    but    believe    great    good 
will  come  from,  the  prohibition  amendment.     That  amendment  is 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        247 

enforcement  laws  were  not  enough  alone.  He  recog- 
nized that  adequate  appropriations  for  enforcement  of 
such  laws  were  required,  and  announced  that  he  would 
support  such  appropriations.  From  the  anti-liquor 
standpoint — the  replacing  of  a  "wet  vote"  in  the  United 
States  Senate  with  a  "dry  vote" — Kent  was  by  far  the 
strongest  candidate  whom  the  "drys"  could  have  se- 
lected. He  had  an  independent  following  which  no 
other  candidate,  willing  to  take  his  advanced  position 
on  prohibition  enforcement,  had.  He  was  not  the  man 
to  look  for  financial  assistance  from  the  anti-liquor 
organization.  His  candidacy  at  once  left  the  "drys" 
free  to  press  their  campaign  for  the  Harris  bill,  for 
"dry"  Congressmen,  and  State  legislators.  Influential 
anti-liquor  workers  throughout  the  State,  recognizing 
the  strength  which  Kent's  candidacy  would  give  the 
California  anti-liquor  movement,  identified  themselves 
with  his  campaign.190 

to  my  mind  a  duly  enacted  part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
and  should  be  enforced.  I  believe  that  those  who  are  attacking 
its  validity  are  either  whistling  to  keep  up  their  courage  or  are 
practicing  a  colossal  confidence  game.  Legislation  intended  to 
weaken  the  amendment  will  necessarily  be  declared  unconstitu- 
tional. Any  attempt  to  permit  the  sale  of  beer  on  the  border 
line  of  an  intoxicant  will  mean  a  perpetuation  of  the  saloon 
nuisance.  Every  student  of  civic  questions  realizes  that  the 
brewery  interests  with  their  subsidized  saloons  have  been  in  the 
van  of  political  wickedness." 

190  Kent  had  the  support  of  Californians  who  had  led  the 
campaigns  for  prohibition,  redlight  abatement,  gambling,  etc.,  for 
Kent  had  been  identified  with  all  these  movements.  Among  these 
leaders  were  Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan  of  Stanford  University; 
Senator  George  S.  Walker,  author  of  the  Anti-Race  Track 
Gambling  bill  of  1909  and  1911,  under  which  race- track  gambling 
was  driven  from  the  State;  (see  Stories  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature 1909  and  1911) ;  Assemblyman  L.  D.  Bohnett  of  San  Jose, 
author  of  the  Redlight  Abatement  Act  in  the  1913  Assembly  (see 
Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913);  E.  W.  Chapin  of 
Pasadena,  twice  candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States 
on  the  prohibition  ticket;  C.  M.  Goethe,  leading  prohibition  worker 
of  the  Sacramento  valley;  Mrs.  Dane  Coolidge  of  Berkeley,  etc. 


248        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

Several  months  after  Mr.  Kent  announced  his  can- 
didacy, it  became  known  that  the  State  President  of 
the  Anti-Saloon  League,191  Mr.  A.  J.  Wallace,  was 
ambitious  to  go  to  the  United  States  Senate  himself, 
and  was  preparing  to  announce  his  own  candidacy  for 
the  Republican  nomination.  Not  only  would  this  late 
entrance  of  Mr.  Wallace  into  the  contest  divide  the 
"dry"  vote  and  very  likely  result  in  a  "pro-liquor" 
candidate  being  nominated,  but  practical  anti-liquor 
workers  recognized  that  Mr.  Wallace  was  without  inde- 
pendent sources  of  strength  which  were  necessary  to 
make  his  election  at  the  November  finals  possible.192 
Some  of  Wallace's  closest  associates  advised  him  to 


191  The   story   has    been    widely    circulated    that   Mr.    Wallace's 
candidacy   was   announced   in   advance   of    that   of  Mr.   Kent,    and 
that  Mr.  Kent  crowded  into  the  campaign  after  Mr.   Wallace  had 
become   a    candidate.      Such   is   not    the    fact.     As    early   as    July, 
1919,    Mr.    Kent's    candidacy    had    been    definitely    announced    and 
was  the  topic  of  general  comment  in  California  papers.     Edward 
H.    Hamilton,    in    the    San    Francisco    Examiner    for   July    30,    1919, 
quotes  Mr.  Kent  as  saying:     "I  will  seek  the  Republican  nomina- 
tion."    Mr.  Wallace  did  not  make  his  ambitions  known  until  early 
in   1920,    fully   six    months    after   Mr.    Kent's    candidacy    had    been 
announced.     On   the   title   page   of   The   Liberator   for  March,    1920, 
Mr.    Wallace's    name    appeared    as    State    President    of    the    Anti- 
Saloon    League,   but  did   not   so   appear   in   the    April,    1920,    issue. 
"Immediately    on    becoming    a    candidate    for    the    United    States 
Senate,"   says  the  April,   1920,   Liberator,    "A.   J.   Wallace  resigned 
the  presidency  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League.     This   resignation   was 
accepted  at  the  meeting  of  the  State  Board  of  Directors  held   in 
Los  Angeles  March  25.     The  unvarying  custom  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League  is  to  retire  any  officer  who  may  become  a  candidate   for 
public  office."     After  M!T.  Wallace's  defeat  for  the  Senate  nomina- 
tion,  his  name  once  more  appeared  in  the  published  list  of  Anti- 
Saloon  League  officials  as  State  President. 

192  This  was   well   shown   by   the   Stockton   Record   in   refusing 
to  support  Mr.   Wallace.     The  Record  is   the  principal  anti -liquor 
daily  paper  published  in   northern  California.     It  had  been  Wal- 
lace's strongest  newspaper  supporter  in  northern  California  when 
he  ran  for  Lieutenant-Governor  in  1910.     But  the  Record  refused 
to  support  Wallace's  candidacy  for  nomination  on  the  ground  that 
he    could    not    be    elected    if    nominated.      The    Record    said:     "In 
nominating   a   candidate    there    is  another   important   thing    to   be 
considered.     Can  he  be  elected?    The  Record  believes  that  William 
Kent  care,  easily  be  elected.     It  is   not  so  sure  about  any  of  the 
other   aspirants   for   the   Republican   nomination." 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        249 

keep  out  of  the  fight.  Others,  while  supporting  him 
on  account  of  friendship,  recognized  that  he  was  not 
so  strong  a  candidate  as  Mr.  Kent,  and  announced 
their  intention  of  supporting  Kent  at  the  finals  if  Kent 
were  nominated.  Still  others,  who,  as  candidates  for 
office  had  in  the  past  had  the  effective  support  of  the 
Anti-Saloon  League,  felt  themselves  under  obligation 
to  support  the  president  of  that  organization  when  he 
entered  the  campaign.  The  fact  that  the  Anti-Saloon 
League  of  1920  was  a  different  organization  from  what 
it  had  been  in  1916  and  1918  had  not  yet  become 
generally  recognized.  In  the  same  way,  candidates  in 
the  1920  campaign,  seeking  the  support  of  the  sup- 
posedly effective  "dry"  organization,  were  naturally 
slow  to  withhold  support  of  the  League's  president. 
Thus,  the  announcement  of  Mr.  Wallace's  candidacy 
increased  the  complications  of  a  much  confused  situ- 
ation. 

Late  in  March,  1920,  members  of  the  so-called 
Ratification  Committee  of  the  campaign  of  two  years 
before,  received  notice 193  that  the  committee  would 
meet  at  Fresno  on  April  1  "to  complete  plans  for  the 
most  effective  campaign  in  the  interests  of  the  Harris 
law,  the  State  Legislature,  and  the  National  Congress." 

193  The  notice  was  written  on  a  California  Anti-Saloon  League 
stationery,  Hon.  A.  J.  Wallace,  State  President,  and  was  signed 
by  A.  H.  Briggs.  It  read  as  follows:  "At  an  informal  conference 
of  representatives  of  the  various  dry  groups  of  California,  held 
in  Los  Angeles,  March  25th,  the  undersigned  was  requested  to 
call  a  meeting  of  the  Ratification  Committee1  of  1918,  to  meet  in 
the  First  Christian  Church,  Fresno,  Calif.,  April  1st,  at  9:30  a.  m., 
to  complete  plans  for  the  most  effective  campaign  in  the  interests 
of  the  Karris'  law,  the  State  Legislature,  and  the  National  Con- 
gress. You  are  a  member  of  that  committee.  The  importance 
of  the  campaign  would  justify  your  presence,  even  at  personal 
sacrifice." 


250        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

This  committee  had,  in  November,  1918,  at  the  close 
of  the  campaign  of  that  year,  passed  out  of  existence, 
the  purposes  for  which  it  had  been  appointed  having 
been  carried  out.  The  committee  had  been  named  at 
the  Anti-Liquor  Convention  held  at  Fresno  early  in 
1918.  The  convention  had  by  resolution  defined  the 
committee's  powers,  none  of  them  extending  beyond 
the  1918  campaign.194 

This  committee  had  become  one  of  the  things  for- 
gotten in  politics.  That  it  should  be  called  together 
created  surprise.  Nevertheless,  practical  "drys"  who 
had  for  a  year  been  impatiently  watching  the  aimless 
drift  of  the  anti-liquor  campaign,  were  hopeful  that 
something  in  the  nature  of  definite  plan  or  representa- 
tive convention  would  be  initiated  at  the  Fresno 
gathering. 

Less  than  twenty  persons  attended  the  meeting. 
The  majority  of  them  were  from  Los  Angeles,  and 
friends  of  President  Wallace  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League.  Mr.  Wallace  went  to  Fresno  with  them,  but 
kept  in  the  background.  He  did  not  attend  the  con- 
ference. Dr.  Briggs  and  Mr.  Montgomery,  posing  as 
Dr.  Gandier's  direct  representatives,  assumed  charge 


194  The  resolution  adopted  by  the  1918  convention  defining  the 
powers  of  this  committee  read  as  follows:  "To  discover  and  offi- 
cially recommend  to  voters,  candidates  who  can  be  depended  upon 
to  favor  ratification  of  the  national  prohibition  amendment  by 
California's  Legislature  at  its  next  session  (1919);  to  secure  the 
closest  possible  co-operation  of  all  existing  temperance  organiza- 
tions, each  using  its  own  machinery,  to  insure  the  election  of 
candidates  recommended  by  said  ratification  committee,  it  being 
understood  that  these  recommendations  shall  extend  only  to  can- 
didates for  Governor,  Lieutenant-Governor,  State  Senators  and 
Assemblymen;  to  settle  and  adjust  questions  of  policy  and  pro- 
cedure on  which  a  difference  of  opinion  may  arise  among  the 
co-operating  temperance  organizations." 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        251 

of  the  meeting.  Mr.  Montgomery  was  particularly 
insistent  in  the  statement  that  Dr.  Gandier  had  so  far 
recovered  his  strength  as  to  be  active  in  the  councils 
of  the  campaign.  Both  Dr.  Briggs  and  Mr.  Mont- 
gomery, salaried  employes  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League, 
supported  Mr.  Wallace's  candidacy. 

It  soon  became  evident  to  those  who  were  not  on 
the  inside  that  the  Wallace  supporters,  who  were  in 
the  majority,  proposed  to  take  upon  themselves  the 
responsibility  of  setting  Mr.  Wallace  up  as  the  choice 
of  the  united  "dry"  forces  for  the  Republican  nomina- 
tion for  United  States  Senator. 

When  a  motion  to  that  end  was  finally  made,  the 
minority  pointed  out  that  the  handful  of  men  and 
women  present  had  no  authority  to  take  such  action; 
that  it  would  bring  ridicule  and  confusion  upon  the 
anti-liquor  forces,  and  contribute  to  their  defeat.  As 
a  substitute,  the  minority  suggested  that  before  the 
committee  endorse  any  of  the  several  Republican 
candidates,  if  it  were  determined  to  take  such  unwar- 
ranted action  that: 

(a)  Thorough  canvass  of  the  situation  be  made ; 

(b)  Efforts  be  made  to  secure  the  retirement  of 
all  the  "dry"  Republican  candidates  but  one; 

(c)  In  the  event  of  failure  to  secure  such  retire- 
ment,  the    committee,    regardless   of    considerations    of 
friendship,  endorse  that  "dry"  candidate  who  had  been 
shown   to  be   the    stronger. 

The  minority's  warning  that  with  two  "dry"  candi- 
dates in  the  field,  the  chances  of  the  success  of  either 
would  be  greatly  reduced  was  unheeded.  Mr.  Wallace's 


252        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

friends  on  the  committee  went  through  the  form  of 
endorsing  his  candidacy. 

After  Wallace  had  been  "endorsed"  the  minority 
further  recommended  that  an  anti-liquor  Democrat  be 
induced  to  contest  the  Democratic  nomination  with 
Senator  Phelan,  pointing  out  that  if  Senator  Phelan 
were  allowed  to  take  the  nomination  by  default,  the 
"wet"  Democrats,  with  the  nomination  of  a  "wet" 
Democrat  assured,  would  register  for  the  Republican 
primaries,  vote  for  the  Republican  "wet"  candidate, 
and  perhaps  throw  enough  votes  to  such  "wet"  Republi- 
can to  nominate  him.  In  that  event  at  the  November 
finals  the  "drys"  would  be  given  choice  between  a 
"wet"  Democrat  and  a  "wet"  Republican. 

This  suggestion,  as  the  others  had  been,  was  re- 
jected.195 

On  the  "authority"  of  the  committee's  "endorse- 
ment" of  Wallace,  the  Anti-Saloon  League  announced 
that  Mr.  Wallace  had  been  named  by  the  "united 
anti-liquor  forces  of  California"  for  the  Republican 
nomination  for  United  States  Senator,  and  attempted 
to  commit  all  anti-liquor  voters  to  his  candidacy. 

As  could  have  been  expected,  the  committee's  at- 
tempt to  commit  the  half-million  "dry"  voters  of  Cali- 
fornia to  President  Wallace's  candidacy  failed  utterly. 

195  Just  what  the  minority  on  the  committee  predicted  came 
to  pass.  Democrats,  with  no  important  contest  within  their  own 
party,  registered  as  Republicans  to  vote  for  the  nomination  of 
Mr.  Shortridge,  the  pro-liquor  candidate.  In  a  circular  letter, 
under  date  of  July  8,  1920,  signed  by  S.  T.  Montgomery,  who  had 
charge  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  department  of  Mr.  Wallace's 
campaign  in  the  South,  appears  the  statement  that  "we  are 
creditably  informed  that  the  'wet'  Democrats  are  registering 
Republican  so  as  to  nominate  Sam  Shortridge."  The  San  Francisco 
press  made  similar  allegations. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        253 

The  anti-liquor  forces  divided,  one  faction  staying  by 
Kent  and  the  second  supporting  Wallace.  A  third 
candidate  entered  the  list  for  the  Republican  nomina- 
tion, Sam  Shortridge.  Shortridge  had  been  prominent 
in  California  politics  in  the  old  days  of  machine  domi- 
nation. The  pro-liquor  people  got  behind  Shortridge. 
From  the  standpoint  of  the  liquor  interests  the  situa- 
tion was  ideal.  One  candidate  supported  by  the  pro- 
liquor  group  was  opposed  by  two  candidates  definitely 
committed  to  prohibition-enforcement  policies. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  "drys"  the  situation 
was  bad  enough.  But  it  was  to  be  made  much  worse. 
The  Anti-Saloon  League  management,  despite  the  pre- 
vious promise  of  their  National  leaders  that  they 
would  hold  Kent  "in  grateful  remembrance"  for  his 
championship  of  the  "dry"  cause  in  Congress,  instituted 
a  series  of  extraordinary  attacks  upon  Kent  which 
drove  the  already  unnecessarily  divided  anti-liquor 
forces  further  apart  than  ever. 

Practical  men  on  each  side  of  this  row,  which 
President  Wallace's  late  entrance  into  the  fight  had 
brought  on  within  the  "dry"  ranks,  recognized  the 
suicidal  folly  of  such  tactics.  Even  though  Shortridge 
were  to  be  defeated  at  the  primaries,  only  one  of  the 
two  anti-liquor  candidates  could  be  nominated;  the 
successful  candidate  would  be  opposed  to  Senator 
Phelan  at  the  November  finals.  To  defeat  Phelan,  the 
"dry"  Republican  would  require  every  vote  he  could 
get.  Kent,  nominated,  would  need  the  support  of 
Wallace  supporters;  Wallace,  nominated,  would  require 
the  assistance  of  the  Kent  people. 


254        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

Even  those  who  were  supporting  Wallace  pointed 
out  to  the  Anti-Saloon  League  management  that  a 
fatal  mistake  was  being  made  in  the  character  of  the 
campaign  which  they  were  carrying  on  against  Kent; 
that  such  a  course  played  into  the  hands  of  the  common 
enemy,196  and  would  result  in  the  election  of  either 
Senator  Phelan  or  Mr.  Shortridge,  both  of  whom  were 
out  of  sympathy  with  prohibition  policies. 

But  in  spite  of  these  warnings,  the  extraordinary 
campaign  of  vilification  which  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
management  had  opened  against  Kent  was  continued. 

Such  a  course  was  as  distasteful  to  informed  sup- 
porters of  Wallace  as  it  was  to  supporters  of  Kent 
who  were  laboring  to  secure  united  action  of  the  two 
groups  at  the  final  election  regardless  of  whether  Kent 
or  Wallace  were  nominated.  Dr.  E.  R.  Dille,  one  of 
the  leaders  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who 
had  for  years  labored  at  Kent's  side  for  clean  condi- 
tions in  California,  while,  because  of  friendship,  con- 
tinuing his  support  of  Wallace,  issued  a  statement,197 

196  in    July    when    Indignation    over    the    Anti-Saloon    League's 
attacks  on  Kent  was  at  its  height,   Dr.   B.  R.  Dille,  pastor  of  the 
Alameda    Methodist    Church,    a    life-long    friend    of    Wallace    and 
one    of    his    strongest    supporters    for   nomination    for    the    Senate, 
wrote  to  Dr.  Arthur  H.  Briggs  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  that  it 
is    "poor   politics    as    well    as    poor    morals    to    wage    a    campaign 
of  asperity   and   bitterness,    as   neither   Kent   nor  Wallace   can   be 
elected   without   the    support   of   the   other's   friends,"    and    added, 
"we  can  afford   to   give   Kent  a  square  deal."     Dr.    Dille  insisted 
in   another  letter   that   "a   grave   mistake   had  been   made   by   the 
Wallace  people  in  attacking  Kent  at  all,  that  it  was  playing  into 
the    hands    of    the    common    enemy,    and    meant    the    election    of 
Phelan  or  worse  than  all,   Shortridge." 

197  Dr.   Dille's    tribute    to   Mr.   Kent   was   as    follows:      "I   have 
this    tribute   to    pa.y    to   Hon.    Wm.    Kent.     I   first    came    to   know 
him  during  the  Graft  Prosecution   in  San   Francisco — a  time  that 
tried   men's  souls  and  when   it  cost  something  to  fight  the  allied 
villainies    that    had    corrupted    the    courts,    suborned    juries,    sub- 
sidized the  press  and  dragged  the  good  name  of  the  city  in  the 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        255 

as  an  "act  of  simple  justice,"  as  he  termed  it,  showing 
the  attacks  upon  Kent  to  be  unwarranted.  Neverthe- 
less, the  attacks  continued. 

Eventually,  the  anti-liquor  pre-primary  campaign 
degenerated  into  a  scramble  to  nominate  Wallace  to 
the  exclusion  of  other  issues. 

Although  the  vote  on  the  Harris  bill  was  only  three 
months  off,  and  candidates  for  Congress  and  the 
Legislature  were  to  be  nominated,  the  Anti-Saloon 
League's  eight-page  publication,  The  Liberator,  in  its 
issue  before  the  primaries,  was,  with  the  exception  of 
fifteen  lines,  given  over  entirely  to  Wallace's  candi- 
dacy.198 Down  to  the  day  of  the  primaries,  the  Anti- 


dust.  His  voice  rang  out  like  a  clarion  then,  and  he  stood  beside 
such  men  as  Hiram  Johnson,  Matt  I.  Sullivan  and  Francis  J. 
Heney  in  doing  valiant  service  as  a  Soldier  of  the  Common  Good. 
I  know  also  of  his  sympathy  and  support  and  of  his  large  con- 
tribution of  influence  and  aid  to  the  campaign  foi<  the  destruction 
of  the  Race-Track  and  prize-fight  infamies,  and  of  his  support 
of  the  Red  Light  Abatement  law,  and  to  his  practical  support 
of  the  Eighteenth  Amendment.  I  bear  this  testimony  not  as  a 
politician  nor  for  political  ends  but  as  an  act  of  simple  justice 
to  a  man  who  has  never  failed  in  times  of  public  danger  to  throw 
his  whole  weight  of  influence  and  support  to  the  things  that 
make  for  the  public  weal,  and  for  righteousness  in  public  and 
private  life." 

198  The  Liberator  for  August  1920,  page  1  was  occupied  by  a 
picture  of  Wallace;  pages  2  and  3  were  devoted  to  articles  on 
Wallace  with  the  exception  of  an  eleven-line  statement  in  small 
type  that  Congressman  Barbour  had  been  endorsed  by  Fresno 
County  'drys'  for  Congress,  and  Stanley  Moffatt  and  B.  W. 
McKeen  for  the  Assembly.  This  was  the  only  reference  in  the 
entire  paper  to  congressional  or  legislative  candidates.  Page  4 
contained  an  appeal  to  vote  for  Wallace,  and  a  statement  of  his 
alleged  responsibility  for  the  social  creed  of  the  churches.  Page 
5  had  an  account  of  Wallace's  alleged  strength,  and  an  article 
on  Wallace  as  a  "Practical  Idealist".  Page  6  contained  a  state- 
ment of  Wallace's  alleged  strength  in  Alameda  County.  (Inci- 
dentally, It  may  be  said,  that  the  Alameda  County  vote  of  41,259 
for  prohibition  in  1916  fell  to  10,057,  for  Mr.  Wallace  in  1920.) 
On  this  page  was  the  only  reference  in  the  entire  issue  to  the 
Harris  bill.  It  contained  four  lines.  Page  7  was  given  over 
entirely  to  a  statement  signed  by  Bishop  Adna  W.  Leonard  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  others,  setting  forth  among 
other  things,  that  it  is  "our  duty  as  Christian  citizens,"  "our  big 


256        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

Saloon  League  representatives  gave  out  the  most  ex- 
travagant statements  of  Wallace's  strength.  On  the 
day  of  the  primaries  they  claimed,  for  example,  that 
Wallace  would  carry  Los  Angeles  County  by  80,000 
majority.  Practical  observers  knew,  of  course,  that 
Wallace  would  poll  no  such  vote,  but  unquestionably 
many  were  influenced  by  the  League's  unwarranted 
statements  of  Wallace's  strength  into  voting  for  him 
as  the  only  "dry"  candidate  who  could  be  nominated. 
Far  from  securing  a  majority  of  80,000  in  Los 
Angeles  County,  Wallace  in  the  entire  county  polled 
only  28,920  votes.199 

job  in  the  primary  election"  to  nominate  Hon.  A.  J.  Wallace;  that 
"Mr.  Wallace  carries  the  endorsement  of  the,  .  .  .  Ratification 
Committee  representing  the  united  dry  forces  of  California."  Page 
8  was  devoted  to  a  statement  headed  "Sure,  we'll  finish  the  job." 
"Three  men,"  one  paragraph  of  this  statement  set  forth,  "seek 
the  Republican  nomination  to  the  United  States  Senate.  One 
is  a  reactionary  and  wet.  Another  is  an  erratic  radical  and  has 
never  yet  said  squarely  that  he  would  oppose  any  weakening  of 
the  Volstead  Act  (compare  with  footnote  189).  The  third  is 
A.  J.  Wallace,  A  PROGRESSIVE  REPUBLICAN  AND  AN  OUT 
AND  OUT  DRY.  We  have  kicked  the  kick  out  of  booze.  All 
that  remains  now  is  to  kick  the  kick  out  of  the  brewers.  The 
one  way  to  do  it  is  to  GO  TO  THE  POLLS  AND  VOTE  FOR 
WALLACE.  Wallace  is  the  only  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate  who  is  DRY.  He  is  the  only  candidate  who  has  the 
support  of  the  united  dry  forces  of  California  and  he  has  their 
support  absolutely  and  unqualifiedly.  A  vote  against  Wallace  is 
a  vote  for  the  return  of  the  brewers.  A  vote  for  Wallace  is  the 
only  way  a  vote  can  be  cast  for  the  strong  enforcement  of  the 
unweakened  Volstead  act."  Such  was  the  official  paper  on  the 
eve  of  the  primaries  of  an  organization  that  was  being  liberally 
financed  by  the  anti-liquor  advocates  of  California  to  uphold  the 
Harris  law  at  the  polls;  hold  the  gains  which  by  good  fighting 
and  competent  management  the  "drys"  had  made  in  the  State 
Legislature;  elect  members  of  Congress  in  sympathy  with  prohi- 
bition enforcement,  and  a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate 
committed  to  such  policy. 

199  Mr.  Wallace's  demonstrated  weakness  in  his  own  county, 
while  it  amazed  those  who  were  not  familiar  with  the  situation 
there,  was  not  unexpected  by  the  more  practical  of  both  sides. 
Wallace  was  the  only  Southern  Californian  running  against  two 
northern  candidates;  his  home  county  had  four  years  before  cast 
138,214  votes  for  absolute  prohibition.  Out  of  this  tremendous 
prohibition  vote,  Mr.  Wallace's  home  county  gave  him,  the  one 
Southern  California  candidate,  only  28,920. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        257 

While  Wallace's  weakness  as  a  candidate  was 
generally  recognized,  the  public,  remembering  the  effec- 
tiveness of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  organization  in  1916, 
1917,  and  1918,  looked  to  see  it  get  out  a  large  primary 
vote  for  the  one  candidate  to  whose  nomination  it  had 
devoted  its  energy  and  resources.  But  this  expectation 
was  without  foundation.  The  vote  not  only  confirmed 
the  judgment  of  those  who  recognized  Mr.  Wallace's 
weakness  as  a  candidate,  but  demonstrated  what  many 
had  begun  to  fear,  that  the  Anti-Saloon  League  under 
its  then  management  had  practically  ceased  to  be  a 
factor  in  California. 

Of  the  436,639  California  voters,  who,  in  1916,  had 
given  the  Anti-Saloon  League  their  support  and  vote 
for  absolute  prohibition,  only  84,711  voted  for  Mr. 
Wallace.  Mr.  Wallace  ran  a  bad  third.  The  fears 
of  those  who  had  advised  against  his  candidacy  were 
entirely  justified;  the  folly  of  his  supporters  at  the 
1920  meeting  of  the  defunct  1918  Ratification  Com- 
mittee at  Fresno  in  refusing  to  assist  in  putting  the 
campaign  on  a  practical  basis,  was  clearly  shown. 
But  Wallace  did  secure  enough  "dry"  votes  to  prevent 
Kent's  nomination.  Wallace  received  84,711  votes; 
Shortridge,  who  had  the  support  of  the  pro-liquor 
groups,  defeated  Mr.  Kent  for  the  nomination  by  a 
plurality  of  21,896.  California  "drys,"  who,  before 
Mr.  Wallace  announced  his  candidacy,  could,  with 
intelligent  direction,  have  nominated  and  elected  an 
effective  supporter  of  prohibition-enforcement,  were, 
as  a  result  of  the  primaries,  given  the  choice  at  the 
November  final  election  of  voting  for  a  "wet"  Re- 


258        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

publican  20°  or  a  "wet"  Democrat  for  United  States 
Senator. 

Steps  were  taken,  however,  to  put  a  "dry"  candi- 
date in  the  field  against  Mr.  Shortridge  and  Mr. 
Phelan.  Mr.  James  S.  Edwards  of  Redlands,  one  of 
the  largest  citrus  fruit  growers  in  the  State,  was  named 
for  the  place.  Had  there  been  immediate  response 
from  the  various  "dry"  organizations  of  the  State, 
the  mistake  of  Mr.  Wallace's  candidacy  might  have 
been  overcome.  The  one  "dry"  organization  of  the 
State  which  failed  of  immediate  response  was  the 
Anti-Saloon  League. 

When  the  League  finally  issued  a  statement,  it  was 
in  the  form  of  regret  that  Mr.  Edwards  could  not  be 
elected.  Such  a  statement  was  deadly.  Again  were 
the  anti-liquor  forces  thrown  into  doubt  and  confusion. 
Mr.  Wallace  sent  congratulations  to  his  successful 
"wet"  opponent.  This  act  of  courtesy  was  taken  in 
many  quarters  as  an  endorsement  from  the  "dry"  Mr. 
Wallace  of  the  "wet"  Mr.  Shortridge.  After  that, 
there  wasn't  much  left  of  the  "dry"  campaign.  What- 
ever chances  Mr.  Edwards  might  have  had  of  polling 
a  large  vote  vanished  with  the  issuance  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League's  statement. 

Practical  supporters  of  prohibition,  of  course,  recog- 


200  Shortridge,  nominated  in  a  three-cornered  fight  by  a  plu- 
rality, had  no  real  strength.  Under  ordinary  conditions  he  could 
not  have  been  nominated.  But  for  the  Republican  land-slide  in 
1920  he  could  not,  even  with  the  Republican  nomination,  have 
been  elected.  The  highest  vote  for  Republican  (Harding)  presi- 
dential elector  was  624,992.  Shortridge's  total  vote  was  447,876. 
Thus  Shortridge  ran  177,116  behind  his  ticket.  But  for  the  un- 
fortunate incident  of  Mr.  Wallace's  candidacy,  Mr.  Shortridge 
could  neither  have  been  nominated  nor  elected. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        259 

nized  that  in  this  primary  failure  they  had  suffered  an 
almost  irretrievable  defeat.  They  had  clearly  been 
weakened  in  the  Legislature,  while  opportunity  to 
nominate  an  effective  anti-liquor  candidate  in  at  least 
one  Congressional  District,  the  Eighth,  had  been  lost. 
As  for  the  important  Harris  prohibition  enforcement 
law,  it  had  all  but  been  lost  sight  of  in  the  drive  for 
Wallace's  nomination.  Many  staunch  supporters  of 
prohibition  scarcely  knew  that  such  a  measure  was  on 
the  ballot.  And  yet  the  Anti-Saloon  League  manage- 
ment announced  that  at  the  primary  election  no  ground 
had  been  lost,  but  some  gained.202 

After  the  primaries,  the  aimless  drift  of  the  anti- 
liquor  campaign  continued,  until  a  committee  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  and  others  who  had  been  active 
in  the  State  campaign  for  prohibition,  organized  to 
save,  if  possible,  the  Harris  act  from  the  wreck.  The 

202  The  statement  was  published  in  The  Liberator  for  Sep- 
tember, 1920.  It  was  headed  "No  Ground  Lost — Some  Gained," 
and  was  as  follows:  "It  is  only  within  the  past  day  or  two  that 
an  accurate  analysis  of  the  primary  election  could,  be  made.  We 
did  not  succeed  in  nominating  A.  J.  Wallace  on  the  Republican 
Senatorial  ticket.  That  seat  is  now  held  by  a  "wet",  Senator 
Phelan,  and  his  opponent  is  a  "wet."  It  would  have  been  a 
distinct  gain  for  us  had  we  won  it,  but  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Wallace 
lost  us  nothing  that  was  previously  ours.  As  to  the  California 
Congressional  delegation,  the  'drys'  have  lost  nothing.  There  will 
be  just  aa  many  dry  votes  from  California  in  the  next  Congress 
as  in  the  last.  Accurate  figures  on  the  State  Senate  and  Assembly 
arrived  more  slowly  than  other  results,  but  it  is  certain  now  that 
the  State  Senate  is  safely  'dry'  and  that  in  the  Assembly,  allowing 
every  possible  doubtful  vote  to  the  'wets',  there  will  be  a  'dry* 
majority.  These  'doubtful  cases'  are  not  conceded  to  the  'wets', 
and  will  be  fought  for  in  the  coming  November  election.  Our 
main  effort,  however,  will  be  directed  toward  winning  the  referen- 
dum on  the  Harris  bill.  It  is  a  great  satisfaction  to  know  that 
on  this  measure  the  various  prohibition  organizations  in  California 
will  have  the  co-operation  of  voters  and  organizations  who  are 
not  primarily  'dry',  but  who  are  anxious  that  California's  good 
name  be  preserved  and  that  the  State  shall  handle  its  own 
internal  affairs  in  matters  of  prohibition  as  in  other  matters." 
This  statement  was  issued  with  the  November  election  less  than 
two  months  away. 


260        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

committee  was  known  as  the  Citizens'  Committee  for 
the  Harris  Bill. 

The  hurried  survey  made  by  this  committee  showed 
how  readily  a  majority  could  have  been  secured  for 
the  Harris  bill  had  a  practical  campaign  been  made 
for  it  from  the  beginning.  Chambers  of  Commerce 
in  Northern  California,  for  example,  had  always  gone 
on  record  against  anything  that  savored  of  prohibition, 
and  unquestionably  influenced  many  to  vote  in  the 
negative.  But  when  a  member  of  the  committee  pre- 
sented the  matter  to  the  Oakland  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce, that  body  endorsed  the  Harris  act  and  advised 
its  following  to  support  the  measure.  The  San  Fran- 
cisco Chamber,  always  opposed  to  prohibition,  refused, 
when  the  Citizens'  committee  presented  the  case  of  the 
Harris  act,  to  go  on  record  against  the  measure, 
although  the  San  Francisco  body  withheld  its  endorse- 
ment. But  this  neutral  attitude  was  a  distinct  advance 
for  San  Francisco.  Curiously  enough,  the  State 
Federation  of  Labor,  always  on  record  against  prohi- 
bition, when  shown  by  representatives  of  the  Citizens' 
committee  that  the  Harris  act  was  merely  a  law- 
enforcement  measure,  followed  the  neutral  course  of 
the  San  Francisco  Chamber  of  Commerce,  refusing 
to  oppose  the  measure,  but  withholding  support. 

On  the  other  hand,  evidences  of  neglect  of  the 
measure  were  everywhere.  In  Southern  California, 
active  Prohibitionists  were  found  who  had  not  so 
much  as  heard  that  the  bill  was  on  the  ballot.  The 
situation  was  even  worse  in  the  North.  Had  the  com- 
mittee had  seven  months  instead  of  seven  weeks,  the 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        261 

task  of  awakening  the  anti-liquor  voters  to  the  im- 
portance of  putting  the  act  over  could  have  been 
accomplished. 

But  the  committee  found  that  it  could  not  over- 
come in  seven  weeks  the  effects  of  the  two-year's  cam- 
paign of  misrepresentation  of  the  Harris  act  which  the 
pro-liquor  element  had  so  aggressively  and  effectively 
carried  on,  nor  could  the  "dry"  voters  of  the  State 
be  shown  the  importance  of  supporting  the  measure 
in  a  period  of  less  than  two  months.  The  committee 
unquestionably  reduced  very  materially  the  majority 
which  would,  but  for  the  committee's  efforts,  have  been 
cast  against  the  bill.  But  the  entire  majority  which 
the  practically  unopposed  campaign  of  the  "wets"  had 
been  able  to  pile  up  against  the  measure  could  not  be 
wiped  out  in  seven  weeks. 

The  Harris  bill  was  defeated  with  a  majority  of 
65,062  against  it.  What  practical  "drys"  had  feared 
from  the  time  it  became  evident,  early  in  1919,  that 
the  Anti-Saloon  League  management  was  not  meeting 
the  situation,  had  been  realized;  the  anti-liquor  forces 
had  been  overwhelmingly  defeated  at  every  point. 

The  vote  showed  conclusively  that  the  Harris  bill 
could  have  been  carried  by  a  good  majority  had  there 
been  anything  like  a  practical  campaign  for  it.  In 
spite  of  the  admirable  pro-liquor  campaign,  the  "wet" 
vote  fell  from  538,200  for  prohibition  in  1916  to 
465,537,  a  loss  of  72,663.  Had  the  anti-liquor  forces 
cast  their  1916  vote  of  436,639,  and  made  no  other 
gains  than  the  72,663  loss  sustained  by  the  "wets,"  the 
"dry"  vote  would  have  been  509,302,  and  the  act 


262        Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920 

would  have  been  sustained  with  a  majority  above 
40,000.  But  had  the  aggressive  campaign  for  the 
Harris  bill  which  Gandier  and  his  aides  planned  while 
the  bill  was  going  through  the  1919  Legislature  been 
carried  out,  not  only  would  the  "wet"  loss  have  been 
many  thousands  above  72,663,  but  thousands  of  new 
voters,  who  remained  indifferent  to  the  point  of  not 
voting  at  all,  would  have  cast  their  ballots  for  the 
Harris  act,  and  the  majority  for  the  measure  would 
have  probably  gone  beyond  100,000.  As  it  was,  prac- 
tically every  strongly  anti-liquor  county  in  the  State 
gave  a  lower  vote  for  prohibition  enforcement  in  1920 
than  it  had  given  for  absolute  prohibition  in  1916. 
The  Los  Angeles  "dry"  vote,  for  example,  fell  off 
13,095,  San  Bernardino  2,481,  San  Diego  5,612,  Santa 
Clara  1,430,  Butte  1,138.  On  the  other  hand,  several 
strongly  "wet"  counties  gave  a  larger  vote  for  prohi- 
bition enforcement  than  they  had  in  1916  cast  for 
prohibition.  The  San  Francisco  vote,  for  example, 
showed  an  increase  of  888. 

The  Anti-Saloon  League  management  had,  how- 
ever, other  excuses  for  this  general  defeat.  In  a 
published  statement  the  League  management  set  forth 
that  the  defeat  had  been  due  "to  the  great  emotional 
reaction  from  the  high  idealism  of  the  war  period"; 
"a  stubborn  moral  and  spiritual  inertia  which  it  was 
extremely  difficult  to  stir";  and  "a  revival  of  denomi- 
nationalism  in  the  Church  and  of  partisanship  in  the 
State."  20» 

The  issue  of  The  Liberator  in  which  these  "reasons 

208  See  The  Liberator  for  December,  1920. 


Anti-Liquor  Campaign  of  1920        263 

for  defeat"  were  published,  showed  that  New  Jersey 
had  elected  a  100  per  cent  "dry"  Legislature;  New 
York  a  governor  pledged  to  prohibition-enforcement; 
Michigan  an  overwhelmingly  "dry"  Legislature  and 
State  officials.  Apparently  outside  California  there 
had  been  no  "emotional  reaction,"  no  "spiritual  inertia," 
no  "revival  of  denominationalism  and  partisanship" 
strong  enough  to  commit  the  people  to  defeat  of  the 
prohibition-enforcement  program. 

When  the  1921  Legislature  convened  it  was  found 
that  the  dependable  anti-liquor  majority  of  47  in  the 
Assembly  of  two  years  before  had  dwindled  to  a 
minority  of  36. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
THE  LIQUOR  ISSUE  IN  THE   1921   LEGISLATURE. 

Practical  men  and  women  on  viewing  the  wreck  of 
the  1920  anti-liquor  campaign  realized  that  the  failure 
of  an  impossible  candidacy  for  United  States  Senator, 
and  the  defeat  of  the  Harris  prohibition-enforcement 
act  were  not  the  .most  significant  features  of  the  ap- 
parent "dry"  defeat.  More  significant  were  the  facts: 

(1)  That,  after  the  most  effective  hunt  for  votes 
the  pro-liquor  people  had  ever  carried  on  in  California, 
their  State  vote  had  fallen  away  nearly  73,000. 

(2)  That  in  spite  of  this   decrease  in  the  "wet" 
vote  the  anti-liquor  forces  had  not  only  failed  to  poll 
their  vote  of  four  years  before,  but  had  actually  cast 
fewer  votes  for  prohibition-enforcement  than  they  had 
cast  for  prohibition. 

There  had  been  no  reaction  against  prohibition  in 
California — the  reaction,  as  the  vote  viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  campaign  showed,  had  been  against  the 
liquor  traffic — and  yet  the  "drys"  had  suffered  over- 
whelming defeat.  Informed  supporters  of  prohibition 
recognized  that  an  efficiently  conducted  campaign  would 
have  resulted  in  the  carrying  of  the  Harris  act  by  a 
substantial  majority.  They  recognized  that,  properly 
supported,  such  a  measure  would  have  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  majority  of  California  electors  in  1922. 
The  demand  was  general,  therefore,  that  the  1921 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature      265 

Legislature  enact  such  a  law.  The  contention  of  the 
pro-liquor  groups  that  the  defeat  of  the  Harris  law 
settled  the  question  of  prohibition  enforcement  in  Cali- 
fornia forever  was  not,  of  course,  taken  seriously. 

Senator  M.  B.  Harris  of  Fresno,  author  of  the 
1919  measure,  announced  that  he  would  see  to  it  that 
such  a  measure  was  introduced  at  the  1921  session.204 

But  canvass  of  the  Legislature  showed  that  the 
effective  act  which  Senator  Harris  had  introduced  in 
1919,  and  which  had  received  the  instant  support  of 
both  houses,  could  not  be  passed.  The  naive  conten- 


204  Senator  Harris  in  a  letter  .to  Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr,  president 
of  the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  under  date  of 
November  23,  1920,  expressed  the  opinion  of  informed  advocates 
of  prohibition  throughout  the  State:  "The  defeat  of  the  so-called 
Harris  bill  at  the  November  election,"  said  Senator  Harris,  "was 
only  the  beginning  of  a  campaign  which  will  end  in  California 
passing  an  enforcement  law  as  required  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  defeat  in  November  was  due  to  a  well- 
organized  campaign  of  misrepresentation  by  our  opponents.  The 
people  were  misled.  They  were  made  to  believe  that  the  Harris 
law  contained  many  things  which  it  did  not  contain.  So  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  I  feel  no  discouragement  at  the  result.  Our  people 
are  now  wide  awake.  I  shall  see  to  it  that  another  enforcement 
measure  is  introduced  at  the  legislative  session  in  January.  If 
the  Legislature  passes  it,  no  doubt  it  will  be  subjected  to 
referendum.  If  the  Legislature  does  not  pass  it,  then  we  will  put 
it  on  the  balloti  by  the  initiative.  In  either  event  we  will  have 
another  campaign.  This  campaign  must  begin  now  and  must 
continue  unremittingly  until  the  next  election.  The  history  of 
the  enforcement  law  in  Ohio  should  encourage  our  friends.  The 
so-called  Crabbe  Enforcement  Law  in  Ohio  passed  by  the  Legis- 
lature, was  defeated  by  the  people  by  about  26,000  majority  at 
the  election  following  its  passage.  The  next  Legislature  imme- 
diately repassed  it.  It  was  again  submitted  to  the  referendum 
and  at  the  November  election  this  year  was  sustained  by  the 
people  by  a  majority  of  nearly  300,000.  It  took  two  elections  to 
kill  off  the  lies  circulated  by  its  opponents.  In  California  the 
ingenuity  of  the  prevaricators  has,  I  believe,  been  exhausted.  We 
know  the  limit  of  their  untruthfulness  and  are  prepared  now  to 
agitate  and  educate  to  overcome  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  raising  a 
fund  as  large  as  we  can  possibly  get;  of  putting  out  organizers  and 
workers  who  shall  constantly  be  in  the  field;  of  calling  to  our 
aid  every  organization  in  the  State  that  will  help;  of  providing 
new  organizations  that  we  do  not  now  have,  and  of  fighting  these 
law  and  Constitution  defiers  until  we  wear  them  out.  We  can 
do  it  and  we  will  do  It." 


266      Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

tion  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  management  that  no 
ground  had  been  lost  under  its  direction  of  the  1920 
campaign,  was  not  borne  out  by  the  situation  which 
the  canvass  of  the  Legislature  revealed. 

But  whether  or  not  the  Anti-Saloon  League  manage- 
ment could  grasp  the  fact  that  the  "dry"  reverses 
meant  ground  lost,  State  politicians  did. 

The  "dry"  showing  of  strength  in  1918  had  reduced 
the  former  opposition  to  prohibition  of  these  poli- 
ticians to  neutrality  in  most  cases,  and  even  support 
in  a  few.  But  the  1920  "dry"  reverses  swept  them 
back  again  to  their  original  attitude  of  hostility.  They 
unquestionably  decided  in  1919  to  keep  hands  off, 
with  the  result  that  the  "dry"  program  was  carried 
through  the  Legislature  of  that  year.  It  was  quite 
as  apparent,  at  the  opening  of  the  1921  session,  that 
these  potent  politicians  had  decided  upon  "no  prohi- 
bition-enforcement legislation."  The  "wise"  soon  took 
their  cue  from  the  unmistakable  attitude  of  the  powers 
back  of  the  Legislature.  This,  coupled  with  the  fact 
that  the  "dry"  majority  in  the  Assembly  had  been 
wiped  out,  was  evidence  enough  to  the  old-timers  that 
"dry"  legislation  was  not  to  be  enacted.205 

205  Such  for  example,  was  the  view  of  that  veteran  reporter 
of  Legislatures  and  competent  observer,  Edward  H.  Hamilton  of 
the  San  Francisco  Examiner:  "In  my  visit  to  San  Francisco," 
said  Mr.  Hamilton  in  the  FJxaminer,  for  March  22,  after  the 
"soaking  wet"  Badaracco  resolution  had  passed  the  Assembly, 
"I  found  the  chief  topic  of  conversation  the  idea  that  the  'wets' 
had  won  a  famous  victory  on  the  Badaracco  resolution.  Now  the 
cold  fact  is  that  the  'wets'  have  won  no  victory  at  all  except  to 
show  conclusively  that  they  control  the  Assembly.  It  Is  just  as 
certain  that  the  'drys'  control  the  Senate.  So  no  resolution 
passed  by  the  'wets'  in  the  Assembly  will  ever  pass  the  Senate. 
Result,  nothing.  Reverse  the  reasoning  and  you  will  find  that 
the  Harris  act,  or  any  similar  dry  measure,  that  may  get  by  In 
the  Senate  will  never  pass  the  wet  Assembly.  Result,  again 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       267 

In  such  a  situation,  a  measure  based  on  the  merits 
of  prohibition  could  not  have  been  put  through  as  had 
been  done  in  1919.  The  only  hope  for  "dry"  success 
was  to  fall  back  to  the  position  that  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  upheld. 

Senator  Harris  introduced  his  prohibition-enforce- 
ment bill  as  he  had  stated  he  would.206  It  was  not, 
however,  the  act  of  1919.  It  merely  vested  California 
State  courts  with  jurisdiction,  and  made  it  the  duty 
of  prosecuting  attorneys,  sheriffs,  and  other  peace 
officers,  to  enforce,  as  if  a  law  of  California,  any  law 
of  the  United  States  enacted  under  the  authority  of 
the  Eighteenth  Amendment. 

The  question  thus  put  to  the  Legislature  was  not, 
"Do  you  want  to  see  prohibition  enforced  in  Califor- 
nia?" but  "Do  you  want  to  see  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  upheld,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
respected  ?" 

nothing.  The  wise  people  who  work  and  plot  outside  of  Legis- 
latures long  ago  made  up  a  program  in  which  it  was  decided 
there  would  be  no  wot  or  dry  legislation  at  this  session.  What  is 
going  on  in  the  Assembly  now  is  merely  'playing  to  the  gallery* 
and  an  effort  to  secure  limelight." 

206  Senate  Bill  4,  1921  series.  The  measure,  as  originally  intro- 
duced, read  as  follows: 

"Section  1.  California  hereby  recognizes  the  requirements  of 
the  Eighteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  for  its  concurrent  enforcement  by  the  Congress  and  the 
several  States;  and  to  that  end  the  courts  of  this  State  are  hereby 
vested  with  the  jurisdiction,  and  the  duty  is  hereby  imposed  upon 
all  prosecuting  attorneys,  sheriffs,  grand  juries  and  peace  officers 
in  the  State,  to  enforce,  as  if  a  law  of  this  State,  any  law  of 
the  United  States  enacted  under  the  authority  of  said  amendment 
and  subsisting  at  the  time  of  the  violation  charged. 

"Sec.  2.  All  fines  and  forfeitures  collected  in  any  court  of  the 
State  of  California  for  a  violation  of  such  laws  shall  be  paid  to 
the  county  treasurer  of  the  county  in  which  the  court  is  held. 

"Sec.  3.  Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  construed  as  limiting  the 
power  of  any  city  or  county,  or  city  and  county,  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture,  or  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  beverage  purposes 
within  its  corporate  limits." 


268       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

To  be  sure,  it  all  amounted  to  the  same  thing, 
namely,  prohibition  enforcement.  But  the  new  Harris 
bill  put  the  issue  on  a  basis  that  even  the  dullest, 
except  perhaps  those  elected  to  the  Legislature  from 
San  Francisco,  could  understand. 

The  new  bill  was  given  the  closest  scrutiny  by  the 
various  law-enforcement  organizations  of  the  State. 
Some  offered  minor  amendments. 

The  State  Law  Enforcement  League,  for  example, 
through  its  president,  Edwin  E.  Grant,  suggested  that 
the  limiting  word  "penal,"  which  in  the  course  of 
amending  had  got  into  the  bill,  be  eliminated,  thus 
making  the  measure  applicable  to  the  civil  as  well  as 
criminal  proceedings  under  the  Volstead  Act. 

"With  the  amendments  I  have  given  you,"  wrote 
Mr.  Grant  to  Senator  Harris  during  the  legislative 
recess,  "I  am  strongly  in  favor  of  the  bill  as  you 
have  drawn  it,  as  I  think  from  a  practical  standpoint 
it  best  meets  the  present  situation." 

Chauncey  H.  Dunn,  one  of  the  most  prominent  legal 
authorities  on  such  questions  in  the  State,  and  who 
had  been  one  of  Dr.  Gandier's  advisors  in  legal  mat- 
ters, passing  upon  the  measure  for  the  Sacramento 
Church  Federation,  declared  that  its  constitutionality 
could  not  be  successfully  attacked.207  The  Woman's 

207  Mr.  Dunn'si  opinion  was  in  full  as  follows:  "The  new  Harris 
dry  law  just  introduced  into  the  Legislature  (Senate  Bill  No.  4), 
to  my  mind,  is  the  simplest  and  most  logical  bill  that  could  be 
adopted  by  the  State  of  California,  at  this  time  under  the  con- 
current authority  vested  in  the  State  of  California,  by  the 
Eighteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  will,  when 
enacted  into  law,  impose  upon  prosecuting  attorneys,  sheriffs, 
grand  juries,  and  peace  officers  of  this  State  the  duty  of  enforcing 
as  If  a  law  of  this  State,!  any  law  of  the  United  States  enacted 
by  Congress  under  the  authority  of  the  Eighteenth  Amendment, 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       269 

Christian  Temperance  Union,  through  its  State  presi- 
dent, Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr,  went  on  record  strongly  in 
the  measure's  favor.  While  individuals,  looking  at 
the  situation  broadly,  would  have  preferred  a  State 
measure  in  complete  form,  such  as  Ohio,  Missouri, 
and  other  important  States  had  adopted,  they  realized 
that  after  the  disaster  of  the  1920  campaign,  no  other 
than  a  "statute  by  reference,"  such  as  Senator  Harris 
proposed,  could  be  expected  of  the  1921  Legislature, 
and  that  there  was  grave  danger  of  even  this  "statute 
by  reference"  being  defeated. 

Fully  aware  of  the  confusion  which  defeat  at  the 
polls  had  brought  upon  the  "drys,"  but  failing  to  ap- 
preciate the  untenable  position  in  which  resistance  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
placed  opponents  of  prohibition  enforcement,  the  pro- 
liquor  members  proceeded  to  force  the  issue.  Crowley 
in  the  Senate  and  Hornblower  in  the  Assembly  intro- 
duced a  Senate  Joint  Resolution  memorializing  Con- 
gress for  modification  of  the  Federal  law  defining 
intoxicating  liquor  so  as  to  permit  wines  and  beers; 
while  Canepa  in  the  Senate  and  Badaracco  in  the 
Assembly  offered  a  similar  joint  resolution  calling  upon 
Congress  to  fix  the  alcoholic  content  of  beer  at  four 
and  one-half  per  cent  and  of  wine  at  fifteen. 

thus  by  reference  making  such  law,  a  law  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  changing  with  changes  made  by  Congress  from  time 
to  time,  if  any.  The  constitutionality  of  the  Act  cannot  be  suc- 
cessfully attacked.  The  decisions  of  our  own  Supreme  Court  and 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  other  States  and  of  the  United  States 
are  all  unanimous  that  one  law  can  refer  to  another  law,  or 
general  laws,  local  or  foreign,  and  by  this  reference  adopt  such 
law  or  laws  and  make  them  a  part  of  the  law  so  referring  to 
them.  For  the  present  at  least  it  will  greatly  simplify  the  enforce- 
ment of  prohibition  to  have  our  State  law  refer  to  and  adopt 
the  law  of  Congress,  with  its  amendment  if  any,  upon  the  subject." 


270      Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

Now  it  was  quite  evident  that  no  Legislature,  how- 
ever "pro-liquor,"  would  adopt  such  resolutions,  or 
refuse  to  pass  such  a  measure  as  the  Harris  bill,  if 
the  people  of  a  constitution-respecting  and  law-abiding 
State  could  be  informed  of  the  situation,  and  the 
influence  of  public  opinion  brought  to  bear  on  the 
Legislature.  The  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union, 
always  dependable  in  an  emergency,  undertook  a  State 
campaign  to  awake  the  public  to  the  meaning  of  the 
1921  Harris  act,  such  as  they  had  carried  on  so 
effectively  for  the  Redlight  Abatement  Act  and  other 
measures. 

Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr  assumed  charge  of  the  work. 
For  a  time  good  progress  was  shown.  Then,  out  of  a 
clear  sky,  came  word  from  Mrs.  Helen  M.  Stoddard, 
President  of  the  Woman's  Christian  Temperance  Union 
of  Southern  California,  that  the  southern  branch  of 
the  Anti-Saloon  League  was  advising  against  the  new 
Harris  Act,  and,  after  an  interview  with  these  Anti- 
Saloon  League  officials,  she  feared  the  Harris  Act  in- 
dicated "an  enemy  is  lurking  somewhere."  208 

208  Mrs.  Stoddard's  letter,  addressed  to  Mrs.  Dorr  under  date 
of  January  12,  was  In  full  as  follows:  "Your  letter  with  enclosures 
of  copies  of  the  new  Harris  bill,  No.  4  Senate,  is  received,  and  I 
have  just  been  doing1  some  phoning  to  the  Anti-saloon  League  of 
our  part  of  the  State,  and  am  informed  that  the  bill  is  extremely 
defective  and  if  passed  would  not  be  of  any  value  whatever.  This 
is  the  complaint  that  they  make — the  bill  refers  to  the  national 
law  and  instead  the  bill  should  contain  that  law  and  also  the 
Volstead  enforcement  law  or  such  portions  thereof  that  our  State 
will  enact.  They  say  they  have  referred  it  to  a  committee  of 
legal  men  who  will  be  able  to  get  in  a  substitute  bill  by  the  time 
the  present  part  of  the  session  closes  and  the  men  go  back  home 
to  hear  what  their  constituents  think  about  it  all.  Now,  dear 
Mrs.  Dorr,  I  fear  an  enemy  is  lurking  somewhere  and  ask  you 
who  are  on  the  ground  to  find  out  about  all  this,  and  see  Mr. 
Harris1  yourself  and  ask  him  if  it  is  unlawful  to  refer  to  another 
higher  law  when  a  State  law  is  enacted.  The  complaint  is  that 
everything  that  is  needed  to  enforce  a  law  must  be  written  in 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature      271 

Naturally  Mrs.  Stoddard's  letter  threw  the  anti- 
liquor  forces  at  Sacramento  into  confusion.  The  work 
of  creating  public  opinion  for  the  Harris  bill  slowed 
down  to  the  stopping  point.  "Drys"  at  Sacramento, 
knowing  the  situation  and  the  difficulties  of  it,  realized 
that  if  word  of  the  division  over  the  bill  got  into  the 
papers,  there  would  be  no  prohibition-enforcement 
legislation  at  the  1921  session  of  the  Legislature.  Every 
precaution  was  taken  to  keep  the  matter  out  of  the 
papers.  Arrangements  were  made  for  a  conference 
to  get  the  faction  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  opposing 
the  measure  to  join  with  the  other  progressive  groups 
to  put  it  through.  But  during  the  remainder  of  the 
first  part  of  the  session,  and  during  the  constitutional 
recess,  little  progress  was  made.  In  this  way,  six 
valuable  weeks  were  lost.  The  pro-liquor  legislators 
returned  to  Sacramento  after  the  recess  even  more 
confident  of  success  than  when  the  session  opened. 
The  anti-liquor  members  were  correspondingly  de- 
pressed. 

Under  competent  leadership,  the  anti-liquor  mem- 
bers would  have  forced  the  fight  in  the  Senate  where 
they  were  strong.  Such  were  the  tactics  in  Gandier's 
time.  But  there  was  no  such  leadership.  Besides,  the 
"dry"  forces  had  not  recovered  from  the  setback  caused 
by  the  differences  over  their  prohibition-enforcement 
measure. 

The  pro-liquor  group  was  quick  to  seize  the  ad- 
vantage. They  proceeded  in  the  Assembly  where  they 

the  law.  If  that  is  so,  this  bill  is  not  a  legal  one  in  form  and 
should  contain  pages  of  additional  matter.  Do  have  interviews 
with  FRIENDS  and  write  me  at  ONCE." 


272       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

were  strong,  to  force  the  Badaracco  and  Hornblower 
joint  resolutions. 

The  two  measures  had  been  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Federal  Relations.  Badaracco  and  Horn- 
blower  appealed  to  this  committee  to  send  the  measures 
back  to  the  Assembly.  To  the  consternation  of  the 
"drys,"  it  was  found  that  the  only  member  of  the 
committee  present  opposed  to  such  action .  was  Wen- 
dering.  Senator  Harris  hearing  what  was  going  on, 
hurried  to  the  committee  to  protest  that  the  resolutions 
asked  Congress  to  do  a  thing  prohibited  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  "You  are,"  he  insisted, 
"asking  your  members  in  Congress  to  'scuttle  the  Con- 
stitution/ and  to  stultify  yourself  and  them  by  calling 
for  action  by  Congress  which  on  the  face  of  the 
Constitution  itself,  the  action  of  Congress  and  the 
decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Rhode  Island  case,  is  unconstitutional!" 

But  such  arguments  had  apparently  no  effect  on 
the  committee.  Both  resolutions  were  sent  back  to 
the  Assembly  with  recommendation  that  they  be 
adopted. 

This  signal  success  for  the  "wets,"  while  most 
depressing  to  the  "drys"  who  saw  the  streets  and 
corridors  ablaze  with  newspaper  headlines,  "Wets  Con- 
trol the  Assembly," 209  brought  unexpected  confusion 
to  the  winners. 

209  One  of  the  excuses  given  by  the  Anti-saloon  League  man- 
agement for  its  troubles  in  and  out  of  the  Legislature  is,  that 
certain  "drys"  "made  a  mistake,"  by  admitting  that  the  "wets" 
controlled  the  Assembly.  It  does  not  seem  to  occur  to  these  astute 
officials  of  the  Anti-saloon  League  that  the  "wets"  keep  them- 
selves posted  on  such  matters,  and  that  every  roll-call  on  a  dry 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       273 

Both  Badaracco  and  Hornblower  were  from  San 
Francisco.  It  was  evident  that  but  one  of  the  resolu- 
tions would  go  through.  That  San  Francisco  member 
whose  name  appeared  on  the  successful  measure  would 
be  a  hero  in  the  curious  circles  in  which  San  Francisco 
legislators  move.  At  once,  strong  rivalry  sprang  up 
between  the  two,  each  intent  upon  getting  his  own 
measure  through. 

Hornblower  was  the  first  to  act.  The  day  his 
resolution  reached  the  Assembly  from  the  Federal 
Relations'  Committee  he  moved  that  the  rules  be  sus- 
pended, and  his  resolution  put  to  immediate  vote. 
Fifty-four  of  the  eighty  Assembly  votes  are  required 
to  suspend  the  rules. 

Such  a  wet  vote,  even  in  the  1921  Assembly,  was 
impossible.  The  "drys"  were  surprised  at  the  stupidity 
of  the  move ;  the  Badaracco  "wets"  were  exasperated. 
Hornblower  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  33  to  33.210 
This  was  twenty-one  votes  less  than  the  fifty-four 
necessary  to  force  immediate  vote  on  the  resolution. 

This  defeat  made  it  possible  for  the  "drys"  to  play 

measure  in  the  1921  Assembly  published  to  the  world  that  the 
Anti-saloon  League  management  was  mistaken  when  it  reported 
to  its  following  that  no  ground  had  been  lost  in  the  dry  defeat 
of  1920. 

210  This  was  the  first  vote  showing  the  wet  and  dry  Assembly 
line-up.  It  was  as  follows: 

To  suspend  the  rules  (wet) — Badaracco,  Beal,  Bishop,  Burns, 
Christian.  Cleveland,  Coombs,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Gray,  Greene, 
Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lewis,  Manning, 
McCloskey,  McGee,  McPherson,  Morrison,  Parker,  Pedrotti,  Ream, 
Rosenshine,  Ross,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Stevens,  Warren,  Webster,  and 
West— 33. 

Against  suspending  the  rules  (dry) — Badham,  Baker,  Benton, 
Bernard.  Brooks,  Cleary.  Colburn.  Crittenden,  Cummings,  Ful- 
wider,  Graves,  Hart,  Heisinger,  Hume,  Johnson.  Jones,  G.  L. ; 
Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lyons,  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen, 
Parkinson,  Roberts,  Saylor,  Spalding,  Weber,  Wendering,  White, 
Windrem,  Wright,  H.  M.;  Wright,  T.  M.— 33. 


274      Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

Hornblower  against  Badaracco,  a  pastime  which  created 
amusement,  laughter,  and  newspaper  stories,  without 
bringing  anything  important  in  the  way  of  results. 
While  the  "drys"  were  congratulating  themselves  over 
Hornblower's  failure  to  do  something  that  could  not 
be  done,  the  "wets"  were  preparing  to  force  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Badaracco  resolution. 

When  in  the  regular  course  of  legislative  business 
that  measure  came  up  for  vote,  T.  M.  Wright  at- 
tempted to  have  it  sent  back  to  committee.  But  the 
best  Wright  could  do  was  to  get  twenty-five  votes  for 
his  motion.  Forty-seven  Assemblymen  voted  against 
him.  This  brought  Badaracco's  resolution 211  to  imme- 
diate vote.  It  carried.  Forty-three  members  voted  for 
it;  thirty-four  against  it.212 

For  the  first  time  in  ten  years  the  "drys"  saw  a 

211  The  Badaracco  resolution  for  which  forty-three  members  of 
the  Assembly  voted,   concluded:     "Resolved  by  the  Assembly  and 
Senate,    jointly,    That   the    Legislature    of   the   State   of    California 
hereby  memorializes  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  imme- 
diately consider  a  modification  of  the  Act  known  as  'Public  Sixty- 
six  of  the  Sixty-sixth  Congress,"  to  the  end  that  the  definition  of 
intoxicating  beverages   as   therein  contained  be   changed   to  allow 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  four  and  one-half  per  cent  beer,  and 
fifteen   per   cent  wine;    be    it   further   Resolved,    That   California's 
senators  and  representatives  in  Congress  be,  and  they  are  hereby 
requested  to  use  their  utmost  endeavor  to  secure  the  modification 
of  said  Act  herein  set  forth." 

212  The  vote   by   which   the   Badaracco   resolution   was   passed 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  resolution — Anderson,  Badaracco,  Baker,  Beal,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Christian,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Bksward,  Fellom, 
Fulwider,  Gray,  Greene,  Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  John- 
ston, Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lewis,  Long,  Loucks,  Lyons,  Manning,  McCloskey, 
McGee,  McPherson,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parker,  Pedrotti, 
Prendergast,  Ream,  Rosensnine,  Ross,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Stevens, 
Warren,  and  West — 43. 

Against  the  resolution  —  Badham,  Bernard,  Bromley,  Brooks, 
Broughton,  Cleary,  Crittenden,  Cummings,  Graves,  Hart,  Heisin- 
ger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee, 
I.  A.;  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Parkinson,  Pettis, 
Roberts,  Saylor,  Spalding,  Weber,  Webster,  Wendering,  White, 
Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.;  Wright.  T.  M.— 34. 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature      275 

pro-liquor  measure  receive  a  majority  vote  in  a  house 
of  the  California  Legislature.  The  liquor  people  had 
been  able  to  block  "dry"  measures,  but  they  had  not 
been  able  in  a  decade  to  secure  a  majority  in  either 
house  for  one  of  their  own.213 

Having  been  adopted  in  the  Assembly,  the  resolu- 
tion went  to  the  Senate. 

While  the  contest  was  going  on  in  the  Assembly 
over  the  Badaracco  resolution,  the  "drys,"  supporting 
the  Harris  Act,  were  employing  valuable  time  trying  to 
convince  the  faction  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  oppos- 
ing the  Harris  measure,  that  "no  enemy  lurking  about" 
was  responsible  for  its  introduction,  but  that  it  was 
as  effective  as  any  which  could  pass  the  Assembly 
could  be  made,  and  there  was  no  assurance  that  even 
it  could  be  passed.  Gradually,  the  difficulties  were 
ironed  out,  all  factions  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
finally  joining  with  the  other  "dry"  organizations  of 
the  State  in  support  of  the  measure. 

Fear  of  the  "lurking  enemy"  having  thus  been 
satisfactorily  allayed,  it  was  possible  to  work  out  a 
definite  plan  for  defeat  of  the  "wet"  resolutions  and 
passage  of  the  prohibition-enforcement  act. 

All  recognized  that  "dry"  success  could  be  secured 
by  getting  the  facts  before  the  public  that  the  "wet" 
resolutions  were  virtually  an  appeal  to  Congress  to 
ignore  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that 

213  The  adoption  of  the  Badaracco  resolution  was  taken  as  fore- 
runner of  the  defeat  of  the  prohibition  enforcement  act.  "Either 
the  dry  political  machine  has  gone  to  pieces  in  the  State,"  said 
Edgar  T.  Gleason  in  the  San  Francisco  Call  for  March  21,  "or  the 
citizens  have  been  getting  just  a  little  bit  more  repressive  legisla- 
tion than  they  can  stand." 


276       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

the  prohibition-enforcement  measure  merely  facilitated 
the  enforcement  in  California  of  laws  enacted  by  Con- 
gress. To  that  end,  it  was  decided  to  force  public 
hearings  on  the  several  wine-and-beer  resolutions  about 
the  time  the  prohibition-enforcement  measure  came  up 
in  the  Assembly  for  vote.  T.  M.  Wright  was  selected 
to  direct  the  "dry"  fight  in  the  Assembly. 

As  the  "wets"  were  in  majority  in  the  Assembly, 
no  public  hearing  could  be  hoped  for  in  that  body. 
But  in  the  "dry"  Senate,  the  hearing  was  not  only 
possible,  but  easy.  The  Badaracco  resolution  having 
gone  triumphantly  through  the  Assembly  was  before 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Federal  Relations.  The 
Crowley  and  Canepa  resolutions  were  also  pending 
before  that  committee.  A  public  hearing  on  the  three 
resolutions  was  decided  upon.  But  the  several  authors 
of  the  pro-liquor  resolutions  didn't  want  a  public 
hearing.  They  protested  against  it.  They  begged  to 
be  excused,  insisted  that  such  procedure  was  unneces- 
sary and  unfair;  But  Senator  M.  B.  Harris  of  Fresno, 
"dry"  leader  in  the  Senate,  was  obdurate.  And  Harris 
had  his  way.  Very  much  against  their  will,  the 
authors  of  wine-and-beer  resolutions  were  forced  be- 
fore a  public  gathering  to  defend  their  measures. 

The  "wet"  members  at  this  hearing  had  as  their 
spokesmen,  Eugene  Pfaeffle,  who  served  in  the  Assem- 
bly in  the  old  Abe  Ruef  days;  Harry  Hutton,  who  had 
been  a  San  Francisco  police  commissioner  under 
Mayor  Eugene  Schmitz;  P.  A.  Fitzgerald,  president 
of  the  Order  of  Camels,  and  Secretary  Kloos  of  that  or- 
ganization. Senator  McDonald  also  lent  a  helping  hand. 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature      277 

Matched  against  this  strange  assortment,  was 
Chester  H.  Rowell,  perhaps  the  most  effective  debater 
in  California.214 

It  was  a  sorry  affair  for  the  "wets".  The  evening 
was  one  wild  riot  of  laughter  at  their  expense.215  "The 


214  By  way  of  comparison  see  "Story  of  the  California  Legisla- 
ture for  1911,"  page  203,  which  contains  an  account  of  the  public 
hearing  on  the  Wylie  Local  Option  law.     Chester  H.   Rowell  was 
the   principal    speaker   in   support   of   the    "dry"    measure   on   that 
occasion,    as    he   was   at   the   1921   hearing.     A   great   change   had 
come  in  the  ten  years  that  intervened  between,  the  two  hearings. 
In  1921,    Rowell   spoke   for   prohibition   as   provided    in   the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  country.     In  1911,  he  stuck,  to  the  principle  that 
the  people  have  the  right  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  any  business 
which  exists  through  public  grant  of  license.     "The  right  to  run 
a   saloon,"   he   declared   in   1911,    "is   a  public   right  not  a  private 
right.     Any   community   that   wants    them  ought   to   be   permitted 
to  have  them;  and  any  community  that  does  not  want  them  should 
have  the  right  not  to  hav©  them."     Mr.  Rowell's  "wet"  opponents 
at    that    hearing    of    ten    years    before    seriously    contended    that 
Rowell's  position  was  unreasonable.     Indeed,   in   1911,   Rowell  was 
regarded    as    one    of    the    State's    most    radical    opponents    of    the 
liquor  traffic. 

215  Edgar  T.  Gleason  of  the  San  Francisco  Call  wrote  the  fol- 
lowing description  of   the   "wet"   performance:     "New  w_et  propa- 
ganda has  made  its  appearance  and  the  enforcement  bill  will  be 
bitterly    fought.      A    study   of    the    election    tables    shows    that    in 
November  the  constituents  in  twenty-eight  of  the  senatorial  dis- 
tricts cast  majorities  against  the  Harris  act.     In  only  twelve  sena- 
torial   districts    were    dry    majorities    polled.      This    is    interesting, 
particularly  after  what  happened  in  the  passage  of  words  between 
Senator    Harris    and    Assemblyman    Hornblower    at    the    big    wet 
hearing.      In    his    large    way,    the    San    Francisco    statesman    was 
describing  the  indifference  of  the  people  to  dry  legislation.     'Why,' 
he   said,    'the   people  of   San   Francisco   and   the   entire   State   are 
rejoicing  in  their  violations  of  the  Volstead  act."     The  statement 
brought  Harris  to  his  feet.     He  was  trembling  with   amazement. 
'Do   you   mean   to   say,    Mr.    Hornblower,    that   the   people   of   San 
Francisco   are    rejoicing  in   a  violation   of   the    Constitution   of   the 
United  States,'  asked  Harris.     It  probably  was  an  unhappy  choice 
of  a  word  by  Hornblower,   but   he  made  no  effort  to   correct  his 
statement.      'It's   no   secret,'    he   said.     'They're  violating  the  law 
all  over  the  State.     Why,  Senator,  they're  violating  it  right  down 
in    your   own   county — Fresno   County.'      Harris    arose    again.     He 
put   up   a   detaining   hand.     But   Hornblower   had   warmed   to   hig 
task.     'Only  the  other  day,'    he  continued,    'I  read   where   a  man 
in  your  county  was   putting  out  a  syrup.     You  fill  a  bottle  with 
water,   let  it  stand  a  few  hours,   remove  the   cork  and   you  have 
wine."    Hornblower  grinned  at  the  simplicity  of  the  process.    Bada- 
racco  joined  Hornblower  and  began  to  wave  a  Fresno  newspaper 
in    Harris'    face.     It   contained   a  photographic   reproduction   of   a 
cache   of   several    hundred    dollars'    worth   of   liquor   discovered   in 


278       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

'wets'  never  did  anything  right,"  commented  Edward 
H.  Hamilton  in  describing  the  hearing  as  a  "fiasco," 
where  "the  'wet'  spokesmen  were  put  in  a  low  comedy 
attitude  and  their  cause  threatened  to  become  a  jest." 
"To  be  laughed  at,"  observed  Hamilton,  "is  far  more 
dangerous  than  to  be  derided  or  denounced."  "As  a 
thoroughly  developed  'wet',"  Hamilton  concluded,  "I 
fear  I  must  say  the  gods  intend  to  destroy  us  because 


a  building  that  was  threatened  by  fire.  'But  we  have  enacted  an 
enforcement  ordinance  down  there,"  Harris  protested.  'Fresno  is 
already  enforcing  the  law.  The  ordinance  prohibits  just  that  very 
thing.'  Hornblower  was  equal  to  the  remark.  'Senator,  what 
you  say  is  probably  true.  But  remember,  you  can  prohibit  a 
thing,  but  you  can't  prevent  it.'  Gales  of  laughter  swept  the 
room.  'I'll  say  this,'  Hornblower  managed  to  offer,  'I'm  one  of 
those  lads,  Senator,  who  will  take  a  drink  if  I  can  get  it.'  Ap- 
plause from  the  gallery  and  frowns  from  the  main  floor.  'But  if 
you  got  it  from  a  bootlegger  you  would  be  violating  the  Constitu- 
tion,' remonstrated  the  Senator.  'I  don't  drink  bootleg  whisky,' 
said  Hornblower.  'Well,  how  do  you  get  it  then?'  asked  Harris. 
'Oh,  I  don't  know,'  was  Hornblower's  reply,  'I  might  get  a  pre- 
scription from  my  friend,  Dr.  Crowley.'  'But  you  can  only  get 
a  prescription  if  you  are  sick,'  Harris  added.  'I  know  that.' 
Hornblower's  smile  spread  to  his  ears.  'But  any  time  anybody 
is  around  with  a  prescription  I  can  get  sick.'  Hornblower  also 
addressed  himself  to  the  constitutional  phase  of  the  question.  He 
put  great  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  even  Chester  H.  Rowell,  who 
appeared  for  the  drys,  had  admitted  that  while  4  per  cent  beer 
had  been  defined  by  the  courts  as  intoxicating,  one-half  of  L  per 
cent  was  defined  as  non- intoxicating.  The  statesman  from  the 
Twenty-fifth  District  absorbed  practically  all  of  the  limelight. 
What  remained  was  shared  by  Badaracco,  P.  A.  Fitzgerald  of 
Sacramento,  president  of  the  Camels;  Eugene  Pfaeffle,  J.  C.  Kloos, 
secretary  of  the  Camels,  and  Senator  Victor  Canepa.  The  latter 
had  a  hard  time  with  the  Volstead  act.  Each  time  he  referred 
to  it,  he  pronounced  it  differently.  Sometimes  it  was  Volstecher, 
sometimes  Vogelsteck.  He  also  called  it  Vogelsang  and  Vogel- 
snack.  His  act  was  a  riot,  and  had  the  members  of  the  audience 
falling  out  of  their  chairs.  The  wets  opened  with  Fitzgerald, 
who  called  upon  the  Senators  to  obey  the  Latin  motto  over  the 
speaker's  desk.  'Senatoris  est  civitatis  libertatem  tueri,'  he 
quoted,  with  an  expanse  of  arms.  'Meaning,'  he  went  on,  'it  is 
the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  establish  just  laws.'  Fitzgerald 
spoke  at  length  on  alcoholic  content  in  beer  and  wine,  but  before 
he  finished  he  again  laid  stress  upon  the  duty  of  the  Legislature 
to  establish  just  laws — in  this  case  a  law  that  would  meet  with 
the  favor  of  the  "wets."  Chester  Rowell  came  up  smiling  in  his 
turn.  He  said  he  hoped  Fitzgerald  had  been,  more  nearly  correct 
in  the  other  things  he  said  than  he  had  been  in  his  translation 
of  the  Latin  quotation." 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature      279 

they  have  first  made  us  silly.  For  us,  it  certainly  was 
all-fools'  eve." 

The  hearing  resulted  precisely  as  the  "drys"  had 
anticipated.  The  capital  was  alaugh  over  it;  members 
of  both  houses  identified  with  the  "wet"  side  began  to 
look  for  opportunity  to  get  away.  Senator  Harris, 
who  had  quietly  directed  the  affair,  had  cleared  the 
road,  not  only  for  defeat  of  the  "wet"  resolutions, 
but  had  made  the  passage  of  the  prohibition-enforce- 
ment law  possible. 

To  add  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  "wets,"  the  dis- 
covery was  made  that  the  Badaracco  resolution,  as  it 
had  been  adopted  in  the  Assembly,  made  no  provision 
for  its  transmission  to  Congress.  Therefore,  even 
though  the  Senate  might  adopt  it,  it  would  never  get 
beyond  the  State  printer.  The  tide  was  clearly  turning 
for  the  "drys." 

Under  the  advantage  which  the  discomfiture  of  the 
"wets"  at  the  public  hearing  had  given  them,  the  "drys" 
proceeded  to  put  the  prohibition  enforcement  bill, 
which  Wright  had  introduced  in  the  Assembly,  through 
that  body. 

But  again  confusion  came  upon  the  Assembly's 
"dry"  minority.  The  public  hearing  that  turned  the 
laugh  upon  the  "wets,"  had  made  several  members  of 
the  Assembly  who  had  supported  the  Badaracco  amend- 
ment very  doubtful  about  voting  against  law  enforce- 
ment. They  accordingly  proceeded  to  load  the  enforce- 
ment act  down  with  an  impossible  amendment. 

When  the  bill  came  up,  Eksward  of  San  Mateo 
moved  that  it  be  amended  so  as  to  prevent  its  going 


280      Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

into  effect  until  it  had  been  voted  upon  at  the  general 
election  in  November,  1922.216  The  "drys"  contended 
that  this  amendment,  if  adopted,  would  defeat  the 
purpose  of  the  bill.  But  the  "wets"  gave  little  heed 
to  such  an  argument.  When  the  question  of  the 
amendment  came  up  they  had  one  more  vote  in  the 
Assembly  chamber  than  the  "drys."  With  that  ma- 
jority of  one,  they  adopted  the  Eksward  amendment.217 
This,  from  the  "dry"  standpoint,  rendered  the  enforce- 
ment act  practically  useless. 

The  passage  of  the  measure  after  this  amendment 
was  only  a  matter  of  form.  The  "drys"  all  voted  for 
it,  on  the  expectation  that  the  unfortunate  amendment 
would  be  taken  out  in  the  Senate.218  Several  who  had 

216  There  has  been  some  dispute  as  to  who  offered  this  amend- 
ment.     The    Assembly    Journal    for   April    7    shows    that    "During 
third  reading  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Eksward  moved  the  Speaker  appoint 
a    select    committee    of    one    to    amend    the    bill    as    follows,    etc." 
Eksward   was   granted   permission   to   withdraw  this   first    amend- 
ment.    The  Journal   shows  that  he   at  once   introduced  a   second 
amendment,    covering    the    same    ground    as    the    first,    but    with 
different   wording.      It   was    on    this    second   amendment    that   the 
vote  was  taken. 

217  The  vote  by  which  the   Eksward  amendment  was   adopted 
was  as  follows: 

For  the  amendment — Anderson,  Badaracco,  Beal,  Benton,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Christian,  Cleveland,  Crittenden,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Ful- 
wider,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Hawes,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  John- 
ston, Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lewis,  Long,  Loucks,  Manning,  McCloskey, 
McPherson,  Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parker,  Pedrotti,  Pettis, 
Ream,  Rosenshine,  Ross,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Stevens,  Warren,  and 
West— 40. 

Against  the  amendment  —  Badham,  Baker,  Bernard,  Bromley, 
Brooks,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Coombs,  Cummings,  Hart, 
Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline, 
Lee,  I.  A.;  Lyons,  Mather,  McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen,  Merriam, 
Parkinson,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding, 
Weber,  Webster,  Wendering,  White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.; 
Wright,  T.  M.— 39. 

218  "I   am  not   clear,"    said  T.    M.   Wright,   dry  leader,    in   dis- 
cussing the  amended  bill,   "that  it  would  be  definitely  decided  at 
the  next  general  election,  but  I  am  asking  that  the  bill  pass  and, 
if  it  be   necessary,   the   measure   can   be   amended   in  the   Senate 
rather    than    delay   it    further."      Assemblyman    Merriam,    another 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       281 

been  voting  with  the  pro-liquor  group  voted  for  it, 
because  they  regarded  the  bill  as  amended  harmless. 
By  voting  for  this  harmless  measure  they  were  in  no 
way  assisting  the  cause  of  prohibition  while  saving 
themselves  from  going  on  record  against  law  enforce- 
ment. Fifty  Assemblymen  voted  for  the  amended  bill; 
only  twenty-four  voted  against  it.219 

The  unfortunate  uncovering  of  the  weakness  of 
the  "drys"  in  the  Assembly  had  begun  to  influence  cer- 
tain members  of  the  Senate  majority  who  were  not 
particularly  concerned  about  prohibition,  but  who  had 
swung  into  line  when  the  entire  country  turned  against 
the  liquor  traffic.  By  leaving  the  Eksward  amendment 
in  the  bill,  the  hesitating  Senators  could  keep  their 
record  straight  on  law  enforcement  by  voting  for  a 
measure  that  was  not  at  all  offensive  to  the  "wets." 

The  anti-liquor  Senators  were  accordingly  given 
the  task  of  holding  their  majority  intact  to: 

1.  Vote  the  Eksward  amendment  out  of  the  en- 
forcement measure; 

prominent  prohibitionist,  stated  that  he  rather  figured  the  bill 
as  it  had  been  amended  was  a  "cuckoo"  bird  the  "wets"  had 
thrust  into  the  "dry"  nest.  But  he,  too,  wanted  the  bill  passed 
and  said  that,  anyhow,  if  it  were  ultimately  beaten  the  "drys" 
would  go  to  the  initiative  for  an  enforcement  act. 

219  The  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  prohibition-enforcement 
bill  passed  the  Assembly  was: 

For  the  bill — Anderson,  Badham,  Baker,  Beal,  Benton,  Bernard, 
Bromley,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Cleveland,  Colburn,  Crit- 
tenden,  Cummings,  Graves,  Hart,  Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  John- 
son, Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Lewis,  Loucks, 
Lyons,  Mather,  McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Parkinson, 
Pettis,  Powers,  Prendergast,  Roberts,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spald- 
ing,  Spence,  Weber,  Webster,  Wendering,  West,  White,  Windrem, 
Wright,  H.  M.;  Wright,  T.  M.— 50 

Against  the  bill— Badaracco,  Bishop,  Burns,  Christian,  Coombs, 
Fellom,  Gray,  Greene,  Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  John- 
ston, Lee,  G.  W. ;  Long,  Manning,  McCloskey,  McPherson,  Mitchell, 
Pedrotti,  Rosenshine,  Schmidt,  Stevens,  and  Warren — 24. 


282       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

2.  Secure  a  majority  vote  for  the  measure  as  it 
was  originally  introduced  in  the  Assembly. 

The  job  was  given  over  to  Senator  Herbert  C. 
Jones  of  Santa  Clara.  The  first  skirmish  came  in  the 
Senate  Public  Morals  Committee  to  which  the  measure 
had  been  referred. 

Senator  Jones  opened  by  moving  that  the  Eksward 
amendment  be  stricken  from  the  bill.  In  this  he  was 
opposed  by  Senator  Chamberlin  of  Los  Angeles  and 
Senator  Crowley  of  San  Francisco.  Senator  Cham- 
berlin was  one  of  the  few  Los  Angeles  members  who 
at  the  1919  session  voted  against  ratification  of  the 
Eighteenth  Amendment.  Senator  Crowley  was  author 
of  one  of  the  wine  and  beer  measures  which,  at  the 
public  hearing,  had  brought  the  laugh  on  the  pro-liquor 
group.  These  gentlemen  were  no  more  convincing 
before  the  Public  Morals  Committee,  of  which  they 
were  members,  than  Dr.  (Senator)  Crowley  and  Mr. 
Pfaeffle  had  been  at  the  public  hearing  on  Dr.  Crow- 
ley's  resolution. 

Both  Senators  went  over  the  much-traveled  ground 
that  the  people  had  voted  against  State  prohibition 
enforcement,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Legislature  should 
not  concern  itself  about  such  enforcement.  But  Jones 
easily  showed  that  loyalty  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  required  such  legislation,  and  the  com- 
mittee took  Jones'  view  of  it.  Five  members — 
Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Eden,  Jones,  and  Ingram — voted  to 
strike  the  Eksward  amendment  from  the  bill.  Cham- 
berlin and  Crowley  voted  alone  in  the  negative.  This 
restored  the  measure  to  the  form  in  which  Assembly- 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       283 

man  Wright  had  introduced  it  in  the  Assembly.  By 
the  same  vote,  5  to  2,  the  committee  sent  the  restored 
bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  recommendation  that  it 
do  pass. 

The  next  step  was  to  induce  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  to  accept  the  committee's  recommendation  that 
the  Eksward  amendment  be  dropped. 

In  the  debate  that  ensued  on  this  question,  Senator 
Jones  made  it  clear  that  an  effective  law  was  of  imme- 
diate necessity  in  order  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  every  member  of  the  Senate  is 
sworn  to  support,  may  be  upheld  in  California. 

The  term  "lawless  element"  crept  into  Jones' 
address,  and  to  this  the  gentlemen  who  were  opposing 
the  bill  took  quick  and  almost  tearful  exception.  They 
squirmed  under  the  whip  of  the  charge  of  lawlessness. 
The  supporters  of  the  measure,  quick  to  see  their 
advantage,  allowed  this  feature  to  drag  out  by  irritat- 
ing the  opposition  to  defend  their  position. 

"Lawless  element,"  declared  Senator  Duncan  of 
Butte,  "may  be  defined  as  that  element  which  does  not 
respect  the  law — the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  for 
example,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

The  "wets"  wrestled  with  that  unhappily  for  some 
time. 

"Our  country,"  declared  Senator  Jones  in  closing, 
"is  not  big  enough  to  harbor  people  who  disregard 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  There  is  but 
one  term  to  apply  to  them — anarchists." 

McDonald  of  San  Francisco  was  much  concerned 
lest  some  of  his  "wet"  associates  might  vote  "dry" 


284      Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

by  mistake.  To  make  the  issue  perfectly  clear  he 
made  the  statement  just  before  the  vote  was  taken: 
"The  liberal  element  will  vote  'no,'  and  the  moral 
element  will  vote  'yes'  on  this  question." 

And  so  they  voted.  The  "moral  element,"  as  Sena- 
tor McDonald  called  them,  beat  the  other  kind,  six 
votes,220  therewith  striking  the  Eksward  amendment 
out  of  the  bill. 

Senator  Chamberlin  offered  an  amendment  similar 
in  many  respects  to  Eksward's,  which  would  also  have 
prevented  the  measure  going  into  effect  until  a  State 
vote  could  be  taken  on  it.  Chamberlin's  amendment 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  17  to  21.221 

Four  days  later,  without  debate,  the  measure  was 
put  on  its  passage.  It  was  passed  with  24  voting  for 
it  to  15  against  it.222 

220  The  vote  by  which  the  Senate  rejected  the  Eksward  amend- 
ment was  as  follows: 

Against  the  Eksward  amendment  —  Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle, 
Boggs,  Breed,  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Chamberlin,  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden, 
Gates,  Harris,  Hart,  Ingram,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Lyon, 
Nelson,  Osborne,  Rominger,  and  Tonkin — 22. 

For  the  Eksward  amendment — Senators  Burnett,  Canepa,  Crow- 
ley,  Flaherty,  Godsil,  Inman,  McDonald,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Rigdon, 
Rush,  Sample,  Scott,  Shearer,  and  Slater — 15. 

221  The  vote  by  which  the  Chamberlin  amendment  was  rejected 
was: 

For  the  Chamberlin  amendment  —  Senators  Burnett,  Canepa, 
Carr,  F.  M. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Flaherty,  Godsil,  Hart,  Inman, 
McDonald,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Rigdon,  Sample,  Scott,  Shearer,  and 
Slater— 17. 

Against  the  Chamberlin  amendment — Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle, 
Boggs,  Breed,  Carr,  W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden,  Gates,  Harris, 
Ingram,  Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Lyon,  Nelson,  Osborne, 
Rominger,  Rush,  and  Tonkin — 21. 

222  The  vote  by  which  the  prohibition-enforcement  bill  passed 
the  Senate  was: 

For  the  bill — Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Breed,  Carr, 
W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Eden,  Gates,  Harris,  Hart,  Ingram, 
Irwin,  Johnson,  Jones,  King,  Lyon,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Otis,  Rigdon, 
Rominger,  Sample,  and  Tonkin — 24. 

Against  the  bill  —  Senators  Anderson,  Burnett,  Canepa,  Carr, 
F.  M. ;  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Flaherty,  Godsil,  Inman,  McDonald, 
Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey.  Shearer,  and  Slater— 15. 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       285 

After  passing  the  Senate,  the  status  of  the  bill  was: 

It  had  passed  the  Senate  just  as  the  "drys"  had 
introduced  it  in  the  Assembly,  which  was  as  the  "drys" 
wanted  it. 

It  had  passed  the  Assembly  in  the  same  form  plus 
the  Eksward  amendment,  which  was  just  as  the  "wets" 
wanted  it. 

The  job  of  the  "drys"  was  to  get  a  majority  of 
the  Assembly  to  agree  to  the  Senate's  course  in  drop- 
ping the  Eksward  amendment. 

This  they  finally  succeeded  in  doing.  The  Assem- 
bly, by  a  vote  of  42  to  34,  concurred  in  the  Senate's 
action.228 

The  prohibition  enforcement  measure  having  passed 
both  Houses  was  sent  to  the  Governor  for  his  sig- 
nature. 

The  Hornblower,  Crowley,  Canepa,  and  Badaracco 
resolutions  still  remain  to  be  accounted  for. 

The  four  gentlemen  who  introduced  these  measures 
are  from  San  Francisco.  To  thoroughly  appreciate 
the  humor  of  it  all,  one  must  know  the  seriousness 
with  which  the  type  of  legislators  San  Francisco  sends 
to  Sacramento  take  the  rights  of  liquor. 

223  The  vote  by  which  the  Assembly  accepted  the  elimination 
of  the  Eksward  amendment  was  as  follows: 

For  elimination — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badham,  Baker,  Ben- 
ton,  Bernard,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Cum- 
mings,  Graves,  Hart,  Heisinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Jones, 
G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Loucks,  Lyons,  Mather, 
McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen,  Merriam,  Parkinson.  Powers.  Pren- 
dergast,  Roberts,  Ross,  Saylor,  Smith,  Spalding,  Weber,  Webster, 
White,  Windrem,  Wright,  H.  M.;  Wright,  T.  M.— 42. 

Against  elimination  —  Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Beal,  Bishop, 
Christian,  Cleveland,  Coombs,  Crittenden,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Ful- 
wider,  Gray,  Greene,  Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Johnston, 
Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lewis,  Manning,  McCloskey,  McPherson,  Mitchell, 
Morris,  Morrison,  Parker,  Pedrotti,  Pettis,  Ream,  Rosenshine, 
Schmidt,  Stevens,  Warren,  and  West — 34. 


286       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

After  the  Badaracco  resolution,  solemnly  adopted  in 
the  Assembly,  reached  the  Senate,  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Federal  Relations,  to  which  it  had  been 
referred,  got  Crowley,  Canepa  and  Badaracco  before 
it,  and  agreed  to  send  to  the  Senate  for  action  one 
of  the  resolutions,  leaving  the  three  to  decide  which. 

Canepa,  whose  resolution  was  a  duplicate  of  Bada- 
racco's,  was  willing  that  Badaracco's  should  be  the  one 
selected.  But  not  so  Crowley.  Crowley  insisted  that 
his  resolution  differed  from  and  was  better  than  the 
others.  Senator  Gates  moved  that  all  the  resolutions 
be  tabled.  This  Senator  Breed,  a  warm  friend  of 
Senator  Crowley,  and  closely  connected  with  him  soci- 
ally and  politically,  hastened  to  second.  Breed  could 
appreciate  the  fun  of  the  situation,  even  though  his 
friend  Crowley  could  not,  and  no  doubt  wanted  to 
save  his  friend  from  further  exhibition.  But  Senator 
M.  B.  Harris,  bone-dry,  acting  upon  the  fully  justified 
assumption  that  continued  discussion  of  the  resolu- 
tions was  the  best  thing  that  could  happen  for  the 
"dry"  cause,  and  Senator  J.  M.  Inman  of  Sacramento, 
whose  outlook  on  the  liquor  question  was  about  that 
of  Dr.  Crowley,  insisted  that  at  least  one  of  the  reso- 
lutions be  reported  out,  and  the  several  authors  be 
given  a  day  to  decide  which.  This  course  the  com- 
mittee followed. 

But  the  several  San  Francisco  members  to  whom 
the  resolutions  meant  so  much  do  not  seem  to  have 
reached  an  agreement.  At  any  rate,  the  Canepa  and 
Crowley  resolutions  were  not  reported  out  of  committee 
at  all,  while  the  Badaracco  resolution  was  held  in  com- 


Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature       287 

mittee  until  the  last  day  of  the  session,  and  then  sent 
out  without  recommendation.  It  did  not  come  to  vote. 

In  the  "wet"  Assembly,  the  Hornblower  resolution 
had  clear  sailing  for  awhile,  but  after  the  "wets"  had 
been  made  ridiculous  at  the  public  hearing  in  the 
Senate,  and  the  accompanying  breaking  of  their  ranks, 
the  adoption  of  this  resolution  became  impossible.  Be- 
fore the  "wet"  ranks  broke,  however,  some  curious 
records  were  made  on  this  measure,  which  will  be 
found  in  the  table  of  votes  on  liquor  issues.224 

The  vote  on  T.  M.  Wright's  motion  to  amend  the 
measure  deserves  special  mention. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  prohibits  the 
manufacture,  sale  or  transportation  of  intoxicating 
liquors  for  beverage  purposes. 

The  Hornblower  resolution  memorialized  Congress 
to  increase  the  present  defined  alcoholic  content  of 
alcoholic  liquor. 

Wright's  amendment  provided  "that  in  no  event 
shall  the  alcoholic  content  be  sufficient  to  produce  an 
intoxicating  beverage." 

The  Assembly  refused  to  adopt  Mr.  Wright's 
amendment.  The  vote  was  34  for  the  amendment 
to  39  against.  The  vote  by  which  the  Wright 
amendment  was  lost  is  well  worth  considering  and 
remembering.225 

224  See  tables  of  votes  in  the  Appendix. 

225  The   vote   by  which   the   Wright   amendment   was   defeated 
was: 

For  the  amendment — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badham,  Baker, 
Bernard,  Bromley,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Crittenden, 
Graves,  Hart,  Helsinger,  Hughes,  Hume,  Johnson,  Jones,  G.  L. ; 
Jones,  I.;  Kline,  Lee,  I.  A.;  Loucks,  Mather,  McDowell,  McKeen, 


288       Liquor  Issue  in  1921  Legislature 

But  in  spite  of  this  extraordinary  vote,  the  Horn- 
blower  resolution,  when  it  came  up  for  final  considera- 
tion one  week  after  the  Senate  public  hearing  on  such 
measures,  was  defeated  by  a  narrow  margin  of  two 
votes.  Forty-one  votes  were  necessary  for  its  adoption. 
The  vote  stood  39  to  39.226 

Merriam,  Parkinson,  Roberts,  Saylor,  Spalding,  Weber,  Wendering, 
Windrem,   Wright,   H.   W.;  Wright,   T.   M.— 34. 

Against  the  amendment — Assemblymen  Badaracco,  Beal,  Ben- 
ton,  Bishop,  Burns,  Christian,  Cleveland,  Eksward,  Fellom,  Ful- 
wider,  Gray,  Greene,  Hawes,  Heck,  Hornblower,  Hurley,  Johnston, 
Lee,  G.  W. ;  Lewis,  Long,  Manning,  McCloskey,  McGee,  McPherson, 
Mitchell,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parker,  Pedrotti,  Prendergast,  Ream, 
Rosenshine,  Ross,  Schmidt,  Spence,  Stevens,  Warren,  Webster, 
and  West — 39. 

220  See  tables  of  votes  in  the  Appendix  for  this  vote. 


CHAPTER  XX. 
ATTACK   UPON    THE   FARM    FOR   ABANDONED   WOMEN. 

Characteristic  of  the  methods  of  the  reactionary 
forces  at  the  1921  session  were  the  attempts  to  force 
the  State  to  abandon  its  policy  of  providing-  delinquent 
women  with  shelter  and  opportunity  for  rehabilitation. 

Largely  through  the  efforts  of  the  Women's  Legis- 
lative Council.227  the  1919  Legislature  authorized  an 
appropriation  of  $150,000  to  establish  this  institution.228 

227  The    Women's    Legislative    Council    represents    the    various 
women's  organizations  of  the  State  with  membership  approaching 
100,000.     Each  year,  the  Council  selects  three  measures'  of  interest 
to  women  to  be  supported  before  the  Legislature.     Representatives 
of  the  Council  remain  at  Sacramento  during  the  session,  concern- 
ing themselves  only  with  the  three*  measures  the  organization  has 
decided    to    support.      One    of    their    three    measures    at    the    1919 
session  was  the  bill  providing  for  the  farm  for  delinquent  women. 
To   women   is   due   the   credit   for  its   passage.      Nothing   illustrates 
better   the   failure   of   reactionary   elements    to   grasp    present-day 
conditions   and   advancement    than   the   comment   of   the    so-called 
Better  America  Federation  upon  the  Women's  Legislative  Council. 
The  New  York  State  League  of  Women  Voters,  through  its  execu- 
tive council,  of  which  Mrs.  Frank  A.  Vanderlip  was  chairman,  had 
denounced   the   methods  of  the  notorious  Daly  lobby  in   the  New 
York    Legislature.      Commenting    upon    this    incident,    the    Better 
America  Federation,  then  working  under  the  name  of  Commercial 
Federation  of  California,   in  its   "Weekly  Letter  No.   24,"   warned 
its    members    against    the    activities    of    the    Women's    Legislative 
Council,   as  follows:     "This  incident  should  serve  as  a  warning  to 
all  members  of  the  Federation  whose  womenfolk  belong  to  women's 
clubs  in  California.     They  maintain   a  legislative  lobby  at  Sacra- 
mento  and   take   a  referendum!  vote   on   issues   which   their  lobby 
shall   support.      This   is,    of   course,    their   right.     But   the  women 
should   be  informed   about   the    true   intent   of   the   measures   they 
are  asked  to   support.     Our  members  will  find  they  can  do  some 
excellent  missionary  work  in  their  own  homes.     If  Frank  A.  Van- 
derlip  had   done   so,   the   attitude   of  the   executive   council   of  the 
'New   York   State    League    of   Women's    Voters'    might    have    been 
different.    This  is  just  a  supposition,  of  course,  but  think  it  over." 

228  The  purpose  of  the  institution,   as  denned  by  the  Legisla- 
ture,  is  to  provide  custody,   care,   protection,   industrial   and  other 
training,  and  reformatory  help  for  delinquent  women.     The  insti- 


290 

The  work  had  the  support  of  Dean  Charles  N.  Lathrop 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  Rev.  Paul  Smith  of  the 
Methodist  Church,  the  Federal  authorities  functioning 
through  the  Commission  on  Training  Camp  Activi- 
ties,229 the  American  Social  Hygiene  Association,  and 
other  organizations  and  persons  familiar  with  the 
modern  treatment  of  the  problem.  It  had  the  opposi- 
tion of  exploiting  underworld  interests  and  more  re- 
spectable agencies  and  individuals  who  have  never  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  above  the  thought  of  Lecky  on  this 
subject,  and  the  methods  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

tution  is  In  charge  of  a  board  of  five  trustees,  at  least  three  of 
whom  are  required  to  be  women.  The  provision  is  definitely  made 
that  the  site  shall  comprise  not  less  than  200  acres.  The  super- 
intendent must  be  a  woman,  as  are,  so  far  as  practical,  all  other 
employes  who  deal  with  the  inmates.  Entrance  to  the  institu- 
tion is  made:  (1)  Through  the  courts — Courts  are  authorized  to 
commit  to  the  institution  any  woman  eighteen  years  of  age  or 
over  who  may  be  convicted  of  prostitution,  soliciting,  keeping  or 
residing  in  a  house  of  ill  fame,  frequenting  public  places  for  the 
purpose  of  prostitution,  or  of  vagrancy  because  of  being  a  common 
prostitute.  The  sentence  authorized  is  for  an  indeterminate  term 
of  from  six  months  to  five  years.  (2)  By  transfer  from  other 
institutions.  Any  woman  eighteen  years  of  age  or  over,  under 
sentence  in  any  of  the  State's  penal  or  reformatory  institutions, 
may  be  transferred  to  the  institution  on  order  of  the  officials  of 
the  place  in  which  she  is  confined.  (3)  By  request  of  the  woman. 
Any  woman  over  eighteen  years  of  age  may  be  admitted  on  her 
own  written  request,  if  the  trustees  believe  there  is  danger  of 
her  becoming  a  prostitute,  common  drunkard,  or  criminal.  Broad 
powers  are  given  the  trustees  in  dealing  with  the  inmates.  They 
are  authorized  to*  give  honorable  discharge  to  any  inmate,  except 
those  transferred  from  other  institutions,  when  in  their  judgment 
such  action  can  be  taken  with  reasonable  safety  and  benefit  to 
the  woman  and  the  public  at  large,  or  they  may  parole  any  inmate 
on  such  terms  as  they  may  deem  wise,  and  recall  such  parole  at 
any  time.  Authorization  is  given  for  employment  of  parole  agents 
for  the  purpose  of  affording  protection,  assistance,  and  guidance 
to  women  on  parole." 

229  The  army  gave  similar  assistance  in  other  States.  The 
results  secured  in  other  Western  States'  were  not  so  satisfactory 
as  those  in  California.  Nevada  legislators  flatly  announced  that 
Nevada  was  not  ready  to  banish  the  social  evil.  In  one  Western 
State,  the  bill  having  been  passed  by  the  Legislature,  was  found 
to  be  fatally  defective  because  of  the  omission  of  an  important 
sentence.  Such  omissions  are  not  unknown  in  Western  legisla- 
tures, when  the  vice  problem  is  made  a  subject  of  legislation. 


Attack  Upon  Farm  for  Women       291 

The  passage  of  the  bill  placed  California  in  the  first 
ranks  of  States  that  are  dealing  intelligently — and 
humanely — with  the  problem.230 

When  the  utility  corporations  and  allied  interests 
undertook  to  turn  back  to  conditions  prior  to  1911,  it 
was  to  be  expected  that  the  State's  attempt  to  deal 
with  unfortunates  of  the  underworld  would  be  one  of 
the  first  policies  attacked. 

Representatives  of  the  corporations  who  appeared 
before  the  Senate  at  the  budget  hearing  were  particu- 
larly insistent  that  the  institution  should  be  abandoned. 
Mr.  Herbert  W.  Clark,  President  of  the  Tax  Investiga- 
tion and  Economy  League,  and  counsel  for  the  San 
Francisco-Oakland  Terminal  Railways,  described  it  as 
a  duplication  of  Pacific  Colony  (an  institution  he  stated 
could  also  be  done  away  with)  which  he  thought  "is 
due  largely  to  political  expediency,  and  is  a  very  costly 
duplication,  and  one  that  will  become  more  costly  all 
the  time." 

Mr.  Wiggington  E.  Creed,  President  of  the  Pacific 
Gas  and  Electric  Company  insisted,  when  discussing 
the  institution,  that  he  did  "not  believe  this  is  a  time 
for  embarking  upon  new  fads  or  fancies  or  social 
experiments,"  and  that  in  his  opinion  the  home  for 
women  is  hardly  necessary.  As  for  Mr.  Thelen,  he 
recommended  that  the  appropriations  for  the  institution 
be  cut  to  $25,000  a  year;  that  the  directors  be  given 
a  trial  for  two  years  with  that  amount  to  meet  all  sal- 
aries, expenses,  upkeep,  getting  the  place  started,  etc., 

230  Social  Hygiene,  published  'by  the  American  Social  Hygiene 
Association,  for  April  and  July  1920,  deals  exhaustively  with  Cali- 
fornia's advance  work  in  meeting1  this  problem. 


292       Attack  Upon  Farm  for  Women 

"and"  to  quote  Mr.  Thelen,  "see  whether  the  institu- 
tion really  works  out  any  sensible  result,  and  whether 
they  can  swing  the  thing,  and  then  at  the  end  of  two 
years  everyone  will  know  better  what  is  the  sensible 
thing  to  do." 

Captain  Duncan  Matheson,  whose  long  connection 
with  the  San  Francisco  Police  Department  has  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century  brought  him  into  daily  contact 
with  the  problem,  did  not  share  in  the  opinion  that  the 
institution  should  be  abandoned. 

"The  necessity  for  this  institution,"  said  Captain 
Matheson,  "is  very  great."  He  warned  the  Senate  that 
neglect  of  the  problem  had  filled  the  insane  asylums 
and  the  homes  for  the  feeble-minded,  making  a  con- 
stant burden  of  expense  to  the  State.  The  institution, 
Captain  Matheson  insisted,  is  preventive,  a  policy  which 
California  cannot  afford  to  ignore.231 

23i  "Many  people,"  said  Captain  Matheson,  "don't  understand 
the  problem,  and  for  this  reason:  I  was  listening  to  the  figures 
that  were  given  here  by  those  representing  the  Home  for  the 
Feeble  Minded  at  Eldridge,  some  1600  or  1700  inmates  there.  I 
want  to  tell  you  that  the  condition  of  a  very  definite  percentage 
of  these  unfortunates  is  due  to  social  diseases.  That  is  one  of 
the  things  that  we\  have  got  to  correct.  I  want  to  say  we  have 
more  than  6700  inmates  in  our  State  hospitals  for  the  insane,  and 
the  condition  of  a  very  definite  percentage  of  the  insane  is>  also 
there  due  to  social  diseases.  I  want  to  tell  you  the  victims  of 
these  diseases  are  on  the  hands  of  the  State  until  their  death. 
Now,  that  is  what  we  are  trying  to  reach  and  to  prevent.  In 
the  bill  provided  for  this  farm,  it  would  take  care  of  girls,  or 
women  rather,,  from  the  ages  of  18  to  25.  Now,  in  getting  down 
to  the  facts  of  this  matter  the  situation  is  simply  this:  We  have 
those  unfortunates  between  these  ages:  70  per  cent  from  17  to 
21%  years  of  age;  20  per  cent  from  21%  years  to  25,  and  only 
10  per  cent  over  25.  So  you  can  very  readily  see  if  we  can  take 
care  of  the  youngl  girl  from  17  to  25  that  we  will  solve  90  per 
cent  of  the  problem.  But  that  is  not  all.  When  we  run  over  the 
percentage  of  social  diseases  among  them,  we  found  during  the 
war  period  that  we  had  92  per  cent  infected.  That  was  not  only 
the  case  in  the  hospitals  in  San  Francisco,  but  it  is  the  case  in 
hospitals  all  over  the  country.  The  records  show  that.  And  it 
didn't  vary  one-quarter  of  one  per  cent  in  all  the  cities  where 
these  statistics  were  taken,  and  they  were  taken  in  all  of  the 
large  cities  of  the  United  States." 


Attack  Upon  Farm  for  Women        293 

Mrs.  Aaron  Sloss,  past  president  of  the  California 
Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  from  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent viewpoint,  presented  the  matter  in  practically 
the  same  way  as  had  Captain  Matheson.  She  was  be- 
fore the  Senate  in  the  interests  of  another  matter,  but 
repeated  criticism  of  the  plan  of  the  institution  for 
women,  brought  from  her  the  following  protest: 

"I  cannot,"  she  said,  "let  this  occasion  go  by  with- 
out referring  to  a  remark  of  the  former  speaker,  who 
said  something  about  the  farm  for  delinquent  women, 
that  he  knew  of  no  one  who  was  interested  in  that  bill, 
or  that  farm.  I  want  to  assure  you,  gentlemen,  that 
there  are  people  in  this  State  who  are  very  much  inter- 
ested in  that  farm  for  delinquent  women,  and  that  if 
you  are  going  to  take  care  of  all  of  the  animals  in 
California,  is  it  not  necessary  that  we  should  take  care 
of  the  human  race  in  California,  and  is  it  not  a  detri- 
ment to  have  our  men  and  women  diseased  as  well  as 
the  animals  on  the  farms?  I  appeal  to  you  gentlemen 
that  the  cleanliness  and  the  purity  of  the  human  race 
is  just  as  important,  and  other  States  have  demon- 
strated that  that  sort  of  a  farm  does  help.  We  will 
not  have  so  many  feeble-minded  perhaps  in  the  future 
to  take  care  of,  to  take  so  much  money  from  our  State, 
if  we  begin  at  the  beginning.  I  leave  this  with  you 
to  think  of  when  you  think  of  curtailing  the  expenses 
in  certain  directions." 

Opposition  to  the  farm  took  definite  form  in  As- 
sembly Bill  1261  introduced  by  Assemblyman  Carlton 
Greene  of  Paso  Robles  to  abolish  the  institution. 

The  Committee  on  Public  Charities  and  Corrections 


294       Attack  Upon  Farm  for  Women 

to  which  Greene's  bill  was  referred,  refused  to  recom- 
mend it  for  passage.  The  committee  was,  however, 
finally  prevailed  upon  to  return  it  to  the  Assembly 
without  recommendation.  When  the  bill  came  to  vote, 
only  twenty-one  of  the  eighty  Assemblymen  voted  for 
it;  forty-one  affirmative  votes  were  necessary  for  its 
passage.232 

Still  another  attempt  was  made  to  abolish  the  insti- 
tution. 

When  the  general  appropriation  bill  was  before  the 
Senate,  an  amendment  was  offered  to  withhold  all 
appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  farm.  This 
would  have  been  as  fatal  as  the  passage  of  the  Greene 
bill  itself. 

The  Senate  by  a  vote  of  21  to  19 233  adopted  this 
amendment.  But  the  Assembly  refused  to  concur  and 
the  Senate  finally  receded  from  its  amendment. 

232  The    vote    by   which    Mr.    Greene's   attempt    to    abolish    the 
Farm  for   Delinquent   Women   was   defeated   was: 

To  abolish  the  farm  —  Assemblymen  Baker,  Beal,  Christian, 
Cleveland,  Eksward,  Graves,  Gray,  Greene,  Johnston,  Lee,  G.  W. ; 
Loucks,  Manning,  McCloskey,  Mitchell,  Parker,  Prendergast,  Ream, 
Ross,  Smith,  Stevens,  and  West — 21. 

Against  abolishing  the  farm — Assemblymen  Anderson,  Badham, 
Benton,  Bernard,  Brooks,  Broughton,  Cleary,  Colburn,  Coombs, 
Crittenden,  Cummings,  Fellom,  Fulwider,  Hart,  Heck,  Heisinger, 
Hughes,  Hume,  Hurley,  Johnson,  Jones,  G.  L. ;  Jones,  I.;  Kline, 
Lee,  I.  A;.  Long,  Lyons,  Mather,  McDowell,  McGee,  McKeen, 
McPherson,  Merriam,  Morris,  Morrison,  Parkinson,  Pettis,  Roberts, 
Rosenshine,  Saylor,  Spalding,  Spence,  Weber,  Wendering,  White, 
Windrem,  Wright,  H.  W.,  Wright,  T.  M.— 47. 

233  The  vote  by  which  this  last  attack  on  the  Farm  for  Delin- 
quent Women  was  carried!  was: 

For  the  amendment,  and  to  deny  the  farm  necessary  appropria- 
tion— Senators  Boggs,  Burnett,  Canepa,  Chamberlin,  Crowley,  Eden, 
Godsil,  Hart,  Inman,  Irwin,  King,  McDonald,  Nelson,  Osborne,  Pur- 
kitt,  Rominger,  Sample,  Sharkey,  Shearer,  Slater,  and  Tonkin — 21. 

Against  the  amendment  and  in  favor  of  the  necessary  appro- 
priations— Senators  Allen,  Anderson,  Arbuckle,  Breed,  Carr,  F.  M. ; 
Carr,  W.  J. ;  Dennett,  Duncan,  Flaherty,  Gates,  Harris,  Ingram, 
Johnson,  Jones,  Lyon,  Otis,  Rigdon,  Rush,  and  Scott — 19. 


Attack  Upon  Farm  for  Women        295 

Thus,  the  several  attempts  to  abolish  the  institution 
failed.  Nevertheless,  the  Legislature  placed  the  handi- 
cap of  inadequate  support  upon  it.  The  management 
of  the  farm  had  asked  for  $318,000  for  two  years  for 
maintenance,  hospital,  etc.  The  Budget  Board  reduced 
this,  recommending  only  $109,000.  The  Legislature 
cut  the  $109,000  to  $85,000,  or  $42,500  a  year  for  two 
years.  This,  it  may  be  added,  is  $17,500  a  year  more 
than  the  $25,000  Mr.  Thelen  proposed. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
LABOR  AND  THE  1921  SESSION. 

Had  the  reactionary  influences,  which  were  felt  all 
through  the  1921  session,  had  complete  sway,  Labor 
would  have  lost  about  all  it  has  gained  during  the  last 
ten  years  of  forward-looking  rule  in  California.  Bills 
were  introduced,  for  example,  striking  at  the  Eight- 
hour  Law  for  Women  and  the  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion, Insurance  and  Safety  Act.  But  such  measures 
either  "died"  in  committee,  or  were  denied  passage, 
usually  in  the  Senate.  Labor  and  the  anti-liquor  group 
were  equally  weak  in  the  Assembly.  It  is  significant 
that  whenever  Labor  has  been  weak  in  the  Legislature, 
the  prohibitionists  have  been  weak  also.  The  gains 
Labor  has  achieved  in  California  have  been  made  in 
Legislatures  when  the  so-called  "drys"  were  well  rep- 
resented.284 The  "drys"  found  themselves  weaker  in 
the  1921  Legislature  than  they  have  been  at  any  ses- 
sion that  has  convened  since  the  overthrow  of  the 
machine  in  1910.  Labor  had  the  same  experience. 
The  "drys"  closed  the  session  with  the  least  they  could 

234  The  Legislature  of  1911,  for  example.  Labor  received  more 
at  the  hands  of  the  1911  Legislature  than  any  other  that  has  met 
in  California.  At  the  1911  session  the  backbone  of  the  liquor 
traffic  in  California  was  broken  by  the  passage  of  the  Wylie 
Local  Option  Law.  See  Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of 
1911.  Labor  and  the  prohibition  group  were  equally  interested  in 
the  adoption  of  the  Initiative  and  Referendum.  The  ablest  men 
who  have  sat  in  the  California  Legislature  during  the  last  twelve 
years,  have  supported  both  advanced  labor  policies  and  prohibition. 
See  footnote  186. 


Labor  and  the   1921   Session  297 

get  short  of  overwhelming  defeat.  The  Labor  legisla- 
tive representatives  left  Sacramento,  confessing  they 
had  failed  to  move  some  of  their  most  important  bills 
through  committees,  but  finding  some  comfort  in  the 
reflection  that  attacks  on  Labor  gains  had  had  the  same 
fate.  Here  again,  we  have  a  stale-mate  at  the  1921 
session.  The  opposition  to  Labor,  functioning  through 
the  Better  America  Federation,  collapsed ;  Labor,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  its  attempts  to  strengthen  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Act,  to  correct  alleged  abuses  of 
private  employment  bureaus,  to  establish  an  eight-hour 
law  for  street-car  men,  etc.,  failed  also. 

The  Labor  group  did,  however,  succeed  in  getting 
through  a  number  of  what  they  probably  regarded  as 
minor  measures.  One  of  these  repealed  a  curious 
statute  passed  a  half  century  ago,  which  provided  that 
"the  entire  time  of  a  domestic  servant  belongs  to  the 
master."  Another  limited  the  working  hours  of  drug 
clerks  to  nine  a  day  instead  of  ten,  and  for  a  six-day 
week.  Senator  Jones  got  through  a  bill  appropriating 
$35,000  per  annum  to  permit  the  State  to  co-operate 
with  the  Federal  Government  in  promoting  vocational 
rehabilitation  for  persons  disabled  in  industry.  As- 
semblywoman Broughton  rather  strengthened  the  laws 
governing  the  employment  of  women  by  putting 
through  a  bill  prohibiting  employers  from  requiring  or 
permitting  female  employes  lifting  boxes,  etc.,  weigh- 
ing over  seventy-five  pounds.  The  abuse  of  deducting 
several  hours'  pay  for  a  few  minutes'  tardiness  was 
corrected  by  limiting  such  deduction  to  the  time  ac- 
tually lost.  The  law  prohibiting  fraudulent  use  of  the 


298  Labor  and  the   1921   Session 

union  label  was  strengthened;  a  small  claims  court 
was  established;  the  office  of  public  defender  was 
authorized  for  the  counties  but  not  made  obligatory. 

Such  measures  were  supported  by  the  Labor  groups. 
Measures  establishing  sanitary  facilities  for  moving- 
picture  operators,  foundry  workers,  and  for  labor 
camps  were  supported  by  Labor,  and  became  law,  but 
only  after  weakening  amendments,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  the  moving-picture  operators. 

In  the  matter  of  education,  Labor  supported  the 
Flaherty  bill,  increasing  the  appropriation  for  Univer- 
sity Extension  work  from  $70,000  to  $170,000  a  year, 
and  did  much  to  secure  its  passage.  Another  appro- 
priation of  $10,000  was  secured,  largely  through  the 
efforts  of  the  Labor  group,  to  make  a  start  in  the 
education  of  migratory  workers. 

Such  measures,  in  the  aggregate  important,  were 
not,  however,  the  "big  things"  which  the  Labor  group 
supported. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  of  these  was  Senate 
Bill  259  introduced  by  Senator  Herbert  C.  Jones. 

This  measure  made  important  changes  in  the  Work- 
men's Compensation,  Insurance,  and  Safety  Act. 

The  Jones  bill  proposed  a  new  plan  for  paying 
death  benefits,  making  dependency  the  basis.  The  plan 
of  paying  three  years'  average  annual  earning,  with 
$5000  as  the  maximum,  it  was  claimed,  works  hardship, 
especially  when  the  breadwinner's  wage  is  low  and  the 
family  large.  The  Jones  plan  gave  a  widow  with  chil- 
dren an  amount  calculated  on  a  percentage  for  each 
child  during  dependency,  but  not  to  exceed  full  wages 


Labor  and  the   1921   Session  299 

received  by  the  husband.  Other  changes  fixed  the  burial 
benefit  at  $150,  an  increase  of  $50,  increased  compen- 
sation payments  from  65  to  75  per  cent,  and  provided 
for  a  2  per  cent  assessment  on  accident  insurance  pre- 
miums for  rehabilitation  and  safety  work. 

This  measure  had  the  opposition  of  the  large  inter- 
ests that  had  opposed  the  King  tax  bill,  plus  the 
special  opposition  of  the  insurance  lobby,  one  of  the 
most  effective  groups  that  hangs  on  the  outskirts  of 
legislative  gatherings.  The  measure  did  not  get  to 
vote.  It  came  to  decision  in  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee toward  the  end  of  the  session.  Up  to  that  time, 
a  majority  of  the  committee  had  been  counted  as  favor- 
ing it.  But  of  the  seventeen  members  only  six  at  the 
test  voted  for  it — W.  J.  Carr,  Dennett,  Eden,  Inman, 
Johnson,  and  Jones.  Duncan  and  Harris,  who  were 
for  the  measure,  were  unavoidably  absent.  Those  who 
voted  in  the  negative  were  Burnett,  F.  M.  Carr,  Cham- 
berlin,  Irwin,  Nelson,  Otis,  Purkitt,  and  Sample. 

Another  measure  which  Labor  supported  but  lost 
was  the  Harris  law,  providing  an  eight-hour  day  for 
street-car  men.  The  same  measure  had  been  intro- 
duced in  the  Assembly  by  West,  but  the  Assembly  bill 
stuck  in  committee.  The  Senate  Committee,  however, 
returned  it  to  the  Senate  with  recommendation  that 
it  be  passed.  But  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  16  to  22 
refused  it  passage.235 

235  The  vote  by  which  the  Harris  eight-hour  law  was  defeated 
was: 

For  the  bill — Senators  Anderson,  Canepa,  Carr,  F.  M. ;  Crowley, 
Dennett,  Flaherty,  Godsil,  Harris,  Ingram,  Inman,  Jones,  McDon- 
ald, Rigdon,  Rush,  Scott,  Sharkey,  and  Slater — 17. 

Against  the  bill — Senators  Allen,  Arbuckle,  Boggs,  Breed,  Bur- 
nett, Chamberlin,  Duncan,  Eden,  Gates,  Hart,  Irwin,  Johnson, 


300          Labor  and  the   1921   Session 

Two  bills  opposed  by  Labor  were  aimed  at  the 
eight-hour  law  for  women.  Since  the  enactment  of 
this  measure  in  1911,  repeated  attacks  had  been  made 
on  it,  but  none  of  them  quite  so  far-reaching  as  that 
of  the  bill  (Assembly  Bill  1088)  introduced  by  Par- 
kinson of  Stockton. 

This  measure  was  not  unjustly  described  as  vir- 
tually repealing  the  woman  eight-hour  law.  It  pro- 
vided that  no  female  should  be  employed  to  labor  more 
than  forty-eight  hours  in  any  one  week,  but  fixed  no 
limit  on  the  day's  work.  Indeed,  the  bill  provided  that 
"the  hours  of  work  may  be  so  arranged  as  to  permit 
the  employment  of  females  at  any  time  so  that  they 
shall  not  work  more  than  forty-eight  hours  during  any 
one  week."  Under  the  bill,  a  female  employe  could 
be  compelled  to  work  forty-eight  consecutive  hours, 
and  then  be  laid  off  for  the  remaining  five  days  of 
the  week. 

The  bill  got  no  further  than  the  committee.  Such, 
too,  was  the  record  of  the  Bishop  bill  (Assembly  Bill 
506),  which  modified  the  eight-hour  law  in  the  case  of 
women  employes  engaged  in  acting  a  part  in  a  play  or 
drama.  This  measure  was  supposed  to  have  the  support 
of  moving  picture  concerns.  But  nothing  came  of  it. 

The  Labor  group,  as  did  the  anti-liquor  group, 
opposed  as  part  of  their  program  the  constitutional 
amendments  to  limit  the  initiative.236  In  the  case  of 


King,  Lyon,  Nelson,  Otis,  Purkitt,  Rominger,  Sample,  Shearer, 
and  Tonkin— 21.  Harris  changed  his  vote  to  "no"  to  give  notice 
to  reconsider. 

236  For  discussion  of  these  proposed  amendments,  see  Chapter 
on  attempt  to  limit  the  Initiative. 


Labor  and  the   1921   Session          301 

Labor,  the  division  was  clean-cut.  All  the  authors  of 
these  amendments — Senator  Burnett,  and  Assemblymen 
Greene,  Manning,  and  Benton — were  in  opposition  to 
the  labor  program. 

But  on  the  liquor  issue,  three  of  the  four — Burnett, 
Greene,  and  Manning — were  decidedly  "wet,"  while 
Benton  voted  with  the  "drys."  Had  any  of  the 
initiative-limiting  measures  come  to  vote,  Labor  would 
have  been  found  100  per  cent  against  them ;  while 
the  anti-liquor  opposition  would  probably  not  have  been 
more  than  80  per  cent.  "Dry"  support  given  recog- 
nized reactionaries,  who,  running  in  districts  where 
opposition  to  the  liquor  traffic  is  strong,  glibly  promise 
to  support  "dry"  measures,  is  doing  much  to  shake 
confidence  in  the  "dry"  organization.  Once  the  reac- 
tionaries are  in  control  as  they  were  prior  to  1911, 
not  only  will  further  prohibition  legislation  be  pre- 
vented, but  the  anti-gambling,  prizefight-prohibiting, 
vice-abatement  and  similar  measures  made  possible  by 
ten  years  of  forward-looking  State  administration,  will 
be  broken  down.  But  for  the  initiative,  the  prohibi- 
tionists would  not  have  made  much  progress  in  Cali- 
fornia. "Dry"  leaders  of  the  type  of  D.  M.  Gandier, 
Arthur  Arlett,  Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor  C.  C.  Young  made  support  of  the  initiative 
part  of  their  campaign.  Under  the  new  dry  leader- 
ship, endorsement  of  proponents  of  initiative-limiting 
measures  and  other  reactionary  policies  is  not  infre- 
quent. Of  the  seven  members  of  the  1921  session  who 
voted  for  the  only  measure  that  could  be  regarded  as 
opposing  the  initiative  that  came  to  vote,  the  Arbuckle 


302  Labor  and  the   1921   Session 

resolution,237  five — Burnett,  Godsil,  Hart,  Purkitt,  and 
Scott,238  were  "wet,"  while  Arbuckle  and  Gates  were 
"dry." 

Not  quite  so  clean-cut  was  the  Labor  line-up  in 
favor  of  the  King  tax  bill.  The  Labor  group  went  on 
record  for  the  bill;  in  fact,  gave  it  all  the  support  of 
a  Labor  measure.  Nevertheless,  McDonald  and  Godsil 
in  the  Senate,  and  such  men  as  Badaracco,  Burns, 
Hurley,  Morris,  and  Ream  in  the  Assembly,  usually 
counted  with  Labor,  joined  with  such  pronounced  anti- 
Labor  members  as  Senators  Arbuckle,  Gates,  Hart, 
Lyon,  Purkitt,  Rominger,  Shearer,  and  Yonkin,  and 
Assemblymen  Badham,  Baker,  Benton,  Bishop,  Brom- 
ley, Brooks,  Graves,  Greene,  Hart,  Loucks,  Stevens, 
and  Weber,  in  opposing  the  King  bill. 

In  the  same  way,  Labor  supported  the  Johnson 
Water  Power  Act.239  But  as  in  the  case  of  the  King 
bill,  a  minority  of  that  legislative  group,  which  ordi- 
narily supported  Labor  policies,  joined  with  the  Better 
America  Federation  and  corporations  in  opposition  to 
this  measure. 

Labor  had  one  curious  victory  over  the  Better 
America  Federation,  however,  which  gave  Labor  leaders 
rather  more  satisfaction  than  would  appear  to  be  war- 
ranted. Yielding  to  the  propaganda  charging  waste 

237  See  Chapter  XVI. 

238  Scott  was  counted  as  pro-labor.     Nevertheless,  the  report  of 
the    State    Federation    of   Labor  on    the    1921    Legislature    charges 
Scott  as  one  of  the   two   Senators'  responsible   "for  emasculating" 
Senate  Bill  130  in   committee.     This  Senate  measure  requires  the 
installation  of  sanitary  facilities  in  the  operating-room  of  theaters 
and  moving  picture  houses. 

239  See  Chapter  XIV. 


Labor  and  the   1921   Session          303 

in  State  government  which  the  corporations  and  the 
Better  America  Federation  group  under  its  various 
aliases  carried  on,  the  Legislature  undertook  to  re- 
organize the  State  government.  Among  the  new  de- 
partments thus  created,  is  that  of  "Labor  and  Industrial 
relations."  But  the  committee  which  got  the  measure 
into  shape  did  not  report  it  back  to  the  Senate  until 
after  Labor  representatives  had  pronounced  the  section 
dealing  with  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Industrial 
Relations  satisfactory. 

Labor  accomplished  little  at  the  1921  session;  its 
representatives  were  obliged  to  fight  hard  to  hold 
humanitarian  legislation  already  gained.  What  Labor 
was  really  resisting,  however,  was  return  to  conditions 
which  obtained  in  California  prior  to  1911.  That  will 
be  the  issue  at  the  1922  elections.  In  a  hundred  ways 
will  the  issue  be  obscured,  and  the  people  confused 
and  divided.  But  that  will  be  the  issue,  and  in  meet- 
ing it,  laborer,  mechanic,  orchardist,  farmer,  house- 
holder, merchant,  will  have  common  cause. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
FAILURE  OF  REAPPORTIONMENT. 

Under  the  State  Constitution  it  is  made  the  duty  of 
the  Legislature  at  each  session  following  the  Federal 
census  to  reapportion  the  Congressional,  Equalization, 
Senate  and  Assembly  districts  on  the  basis  of  popula- 
tion, to  the  end  that  all  portions  of  the  State  may 
have  equal  representation.  Inasmuch  as  this  means 
that  some  counties  lose  legislative  representation  and 
others  gain,  such  readjustment  is  met  each  ten  years 
with  the  most  extraordinary  opposition.  The  1921 
session  was  no  exception.  The  legislators  failed  to 
agree  upon  a  reapportionment  measure,  and  the  ad- 
journment came  without  reapportionment  having  been 
accomplished. 

To  the  layman  the  wrangle  over  reapportionment 
is  one  of  those  unnecessarily  silly  things  in  politics 
which  means  next  to  nothing.  The  average  citizen  does 
not  care  particularly  who  represents  him  in  the  Legis- 
lature so  long  as  he  be  well  represented.  He  hails 
with  delight  the  legislator  who  represents  what  he 
stands  for,  whether  that  legislator  hails  from  San 
Diego  County  or  from  Shasta.  But  not  so  the  local 
politician.  The  local  politician  is  very  much  concerned 
lest  his  county  suffer  a  reduction  in  legislative  repre- 
sentation. And  as  the  local  politician  usually  makes 
the  noise  for  his  community,  any  move  to  reduce  local 
representation  calls  forth  quick  protest. 


Failure  of  Reapportionment          305 

San  Francisco  has  for  two  sessions  been  the  chief 
protestor.  In  the  1911  reapportionment,  San  Fran- 
cisco lost  five  Assemblymen  and  two  Senators.  That 
city's  representation  of  18  Assemblymen  and  9  Sena- 
tors, which  had  obtained  for  twenty  years,  was,  in 
1911,  reduced  from  18  to  13  Assemblymen  and  from 
9  to  7  Senators.  Under  the  principal  reapportionment 
bill  introduced  at  the  1921  session,  San  Francisco  suf- 
fered further  reduction  in  her  legislative  delegation, 
the  number  being  reduced  to  12  Assemblymen  and  6 
Senators.  This  excited  San  Francisco  politicians, 
although  the  bill  gave  that  city  all  the  representation 
it  was  entitled  to  under  the  State  Constitution. 

This  reapportionment  bill,  Senate  Bill  1,  was  in- 
troduced by  Senator  Boggs  of  San  Joaquin.  He  had 
given  the  subject  close  study.  Indeed,  it  developed 
that  he  had  been  working  on  his  measure  since  the 
first  publication  of  the  census  returns,  early  in  1920. 
His  bill  showed  a  conscientious  attempt  to  follow  out 
to  the  letter  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  cutting 
down  representation  in  sections  of  the  State  where 
growth  in  population  had  been  retarded,  and  corre- 
spondingly increasing  it  where  growth  had  been  rapid. 
As  for  the  three  large  counties  of  Alameda,  Los 
Angeles,  and  San  Francisco,  it  was  found  that  the 
population  of  Alameda  County  had  increased  in  almost 
exactly  the  same  ratio  as  that  of  the  State  as  a  whole, 
and  the  representation  in  Alameda  was  accordingly 
left  as  in  the  previous  decade,  4  Senators  and  8  Assem- 
blymen. It  was  found  that  in  Los  Angeles  County, 
where  the  population  had  increased  from  504,131  in 


306  Failure  of  Reapportionment 

1910  to  936,455  in  1920,  the  growth  had  been  much 
more  rapid  than  in  the  State  as  a  whole,  and  the  rep- 
resentation was  accordingly  raised  from  8  Senators  and 
15  Assemblymen,  to  10  Senators  and  21  Assemblymen. 
In  San  Francisco,  where  the  population  had  increased 
from  416,912  in  1910  to  506,676  in  1920,  it  was  found 
that  this  growth,  though  substantial,  was  less  rapid  than 
the  State's  growth.  The  reduction  in  San  Francisco's 
legislative  representation  was  accordingly  made. 
It  will  be  noted  that: 

(1)  These  three  large  counties  were  given  represen- 
tation comprising  over  half  of  the  legislative  districts 
of  the  State; 

(2)  The    Boggs   bill,    drawn    strictly    according   to 
population,    while    naturally    displeasing    to    the    San 
Francisco  delegation,  where   1   Senator  and   1   Assem- 
blyman were  lost,  would  seemingly  not  be  displeasing 
to  Alameda,  which  held  its  own,  and  would  seemingly 
be   very  pleasing  to   Los   Angeles,   with   a  gain   of   2 
Senators  and  6  Assemblymen. 

Moreover,  it  also  appeared  in  the  districts  outside 
of  these  three  counties  that  5  Senatorial  and  2  Assem- 
bly districts  in  the  more  rapidly  growing  portions  of 
the  State  were  benefited  by  the  Boggs  plan  of  reappor- 
tionment;  that  5  Senatorial  and  27  Assembly  districts 
were  unaffected  by  it,  as  was  the  case  of  Alameda 
County;  while  11  Senatorial  and  15  Assembly  districts 
in  the  more  slowly  growing  agricultural,  and  in  the 
mining  districts,  were,  like  San  Francisco,  adversely 
affected,  and  from  this  standpoint  might  be  counted 
against  the  bill. 


Failure  of  Reapportionment          307 

Adding  to  these  outside  districts  the  districts  of 
the  three  large  counties,  and  regarding  as  potentially 
favoring  the  bill  those  districts  which  had  gained  or 
were  unaffected,  and  against  the  bill  those  districts 
which  had  lost,  it  would  seem  that  had  a  vote  been 
taken  early  in  the  session  the  result  might  have  been 
for  the  Boggs  bill,  22  in  the  Senate  and  52  in  the 
Assembly,  and  against  the  Boggs  bill,  18  in  the  Senate 
and  28  in  the  Assembly.  To  pass  the  bill  41  affirma- 
tive votes  were  required  in  the  Assembly  and  21  in 
the  Senate. 

It  was  quite  plain,  therefore,  that  the  move  of  those 
who  wanted  reapportionment  was  to  force  the  bill  to 
immediate  vote  before  the  complications  of  the  session 
increased  the  difficulties  of  the  measure's  passage. 

This  was  recognized  by  the  alert  members  from 
Southern  California,  who  wanted  reapportionment  be- 
cause it  would  increase  their  legislative  representation. 
It  was  also  recognized  by  the  -leaders  of  the  San 
Francisco  and  other  delegations  that  would  lose  under 
apportionment  on  the  basis  of  population. 

The  Southern  members,  appreciating  the  necessity 
for  prompt  action,  got  together  in  caucus  the  day  after 
the  measure  was  introduced  to  perfect  plans  to  secure 
its  passage  at  the  earliest  possible  moment  before  com- 
plications could  arise  to  wipe  out  their  paper  majority. 

Senator  Lyon  presided  over  the  caucus.  Senator 
Boggs  was  invited  in  to  explain  the  bill's  provisions. 
Representatives  from  Ventura  and  Riverside,  which 
had  their  special  problem,  offered  objections,  but  the 
majority  favored  the  measure.  But  the  controversy 


308  Failure  of  Reapportionment 

grew  so  heated  that  it  was  determined  to  increase  the 
caucus  representation,  taking  in  everything  south  of 
Monterey  and  Fresno  counties.  It  was  thought  that 
such  a  meeting  would  permit  of  some  definite  agree- 
ment. Senator  Carr  of  Pasadena  undertook  to  secure 
full  attendance. 

Few,  if  any,  members  from  the  territory  included 
were  absent  when  the  meeting  was  called  to  order. 
Assemblyman  Merriam  of  Long  Beach  presided. 

The  Los  Angeles  delegation,  the  largest  represented, 
finally  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  bill  was  about 
as  good  as  could  be  drawn.  In  this  they  were  joined 
by  members  from  Orange,  San  Diego  and  San  Ber- 
nardino. It  looked  as  though  the  caucus  would  swing 
in  behind  the  bill.  In  that  event,  its  early  passage  was 
practically  assured.  But  before  the  question  of  its 
ratification  could  be  put,  Senator  Rominger  of  Los 
Angeles  County,  who  had  not  been  heard  up  to  that 
time,  raised  a  delaying  finger. 

Rominger  took  the  position  that  the  caucus  was 
acting  too  hastily.  He  pointed  out  that  the  session  was 
as  yet  not  a  week  old ;  that  other  reapportionment  bills 
might  be  introduced;  that  time  should  be  taken  to 
study  a  measure  so  important;  that  other  reapportion- 
ment bills  might  yet  be  introduced  that  would  give 
Southern  California  even  larger  representation  than 
it  would  have  under  the  Boggs  bill.  Senator  Romin- 
ger urged  that  they  wait  until  they  had  heard  from 
the  folks  at  home. 

Rominger's  eloquence  prevailed,  although  members 
more  farseeing  than  he  pointed  out  that  delay  might 


Failure  of  Reapportionment  309 

prove  fatal  and  play  into  the  hands  of  San  Francisco 
members  who  were  known  to  oppose  the  enactment 
of  any  reapportionment  bill  at  all. 

Senator  Rominger's  success  that  evening  in  delay- 
ing action  meant  the  ending  of  all  hope  for  reappor- 
tionment that  session.  The  caucus  adjourned.  It  did 
not  meet  again.  The  favorable  moment  for  enactment 
of  the  Boggs  bill  had  passed.  The  measure  lay  in  com- 
mittee until  a  few  days  before  adjournment,  when  it 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  for  action.  When  the  bill  came 
up  on  second  reading,  the  San  Francisco  delegation 
started  obstruction.  In  the  absence  of  several  Sena- 
tors, the  21  votes  necessary  for  its  passage  could  not 
be  secured.  A  day  was  lost  in  wrangling.  Just  before 
adjournment,  the  bill  was  re-referred  to  committee. 
The  committee  sent  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate.  For 
a  time  the  blocking  of  other  legislation  because  of 
the  opposition  that  had  been  worked  up  against  re- 
apportionment  threatened.  Senators  favorable  to  re- 
apportionment,  but  seeing  their  favorite  measures 
threatened  because  of  the  feeling  anent  the  issue,  urged 
Senator  Boggs  to  abandon  the  fight.  This  he  finally 
did.  The  bill  was  once  more  sent  back  to  committee, 
where  it  remained  until  adjournment. 

Such  an  outcome  could  scarcely  have  been  avoided 
after  the  opportunity  which  had  been  presented  in  the 
Southern  California  caucus  had  been  allowed  to  pass. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
CONCLUSION. 

"In  some  form  or  other,"  said  Hiram  Johnson  in 
his  1911  inaugural  address,  "nearly  every  governmental 
problem  that  involves  the  health,  the  happiness,  or  the 
prosperity  of  the  State  has  arisen  because  some  pri- 
vate interest  has  intervened  or  has  sought  for  its  own 
gain  to  exploit  either  the  resources  or  the  politics  of 
the  State." 

To  the  question  heard  at  the  close  of  each  session, 
What  did  the  Legislature  accomplish?  the  answer  can 
be  given  of  the  1921  session — Comparatively  little,  be- 
cause both  Senate  and  Assembly  were  occupied  in 
defending  the  State  against  effectively  represented  in- 
terests intent  upon  securing  special  privileges,  evading 
their  responsibilities  to  the  people  and  to  the  State,  and 
exploiting  the  State's  resources.  Not  only  did  these 
interests  at  the  1921  session  seek  release  from  ob- 
ligations, and  to  tighten  their  stranglehold  upon  the 
State,  but  they  attempted  to  discourage  and  pull 
down  the  forward-looking  work  of  the  last  decade 
which  has  made  California  a  leader  among  the  States 
of  the  Union.  Had  their  representatives  had  their 
way,  educational,  curative  and  corrective  work  would 
have  been  limited  to  the  point  of  abandonment  of 
modern  methods,  while  development  work — the  genuine 
kind,  such  as  is  performed  by  the  State  Agricultural 
Department,  for  example — would  have  been  starved  at 


Conclusion  311 

the  risk  of  enormous  loss  to  the  State.  That  Califor- 
nia is  not  today  threatened  with  fruit-pest  visitation, 
such  as  has  brought  ruin  to  thousands  of  Florida  citrus 
fruit  groves,  for  example,  is  due  to  defeat  of  the 
reactionary  policies  at  the  1921  session. 

The  Legislature  had  to  meet  the  attacks  of  these 
grasping,  privilege-seeking,  obligation-evading  interests. 
For  a  month  of  the  short  three  months'  session, 
the  Senate  devoted  most  of  its  energies  to  hearing 
the  attempted  justification  by  the  utility  corporations 
and  their  hired  men  of  their  charges  that  the  State 
budget  was  inordinately  high.  Both  houses  devoted 
a  month  to  meeting  the  attacks  upon  the  King  tax 
equalization  bill.  Days  were  spent  in  consideration  of 
the  Indeterminate  Franchise  bill.  The  opposition  of 
the  corporations  to  the  Johnson  power  development 
act  took  up  hours  of  time  of  the  members  and  of 
Senate  and  Assembly. 

Because  of  such  time-consuming  issues,  little  oppor- 
tunity was  left  for  constructive  work  at  a  season  when, 
above  all  else,  constructive  work  was  necessary. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  so  little  constructive  work 
was  accomplished ;  the  marvel  is  that  there  was  anything 
constructive  at  all.  Nevertheless,  important  gains  were 
made  in  the  State  educational  program ;  there  was 
advance  in  State  plans  for  agricultural  development, 
while  relief  projects  for  veterans  of  the  World  War 
went  through  both  houses  and  were  approved  by  the 
Governor.  A  fourth  group  of  bills  regarded  as  con- 
structive were  the  Harris-Carr  measures  for  the  re- 
organization of  State  departments. 


312  Conclusion 

In  educational  development  the  line  between  those 
who  would  have  the  State  University  part  of  the  public 
school  system  with  its  advantages  extended  Statewide, 
and  those  who  would  have  the  University  a  thing  apart, 
a  pile  of  steel  and  concrete  and  imposing  enrollment 
at  Berkeley,240  became  more  clearly  denned  than  ever. 
The  steel-and-concrete  conception  of  the  University  is 
not  so  compelling  as  it  once  was.  While  enormous 
enrollment  at  Berkeley  looks  well  in  comparative  statis- 
tics, there  was  a  feeling  that  more  important  is  the 
bringing  of  educational  facilities  within  reach  of  the 
largest  possible  number  of  California  young  men  and 
women.  It  would,  of  course,  sound  well  to  report 
20,000  or  30,000  students  enrolled  at  Berkeley,  and 
great  university  buildings  would  appear  well  in  ad- 
vertising and  promotion  pamphlets ;  but  if  the  number 
of  young  people  receiving  higher  educational  advan- 
tages could  be  doubled  or  tripled  by  the  Statewide 
plan,  the  tendency  at  the  1921  session  was  to  give  the 
Statewide  plan  the  preference.  There  was  increasing 
opinion,  too,  that  the  University  should  be  made  part 
of  the  public  school  system,  and  the  Board  of  Regents 
and  University  itself  brought  into  the  same  relation- 
ships to  the  head  of  the  State  School  Department  as 
the  Normal  School  Boards,  and  Teachers'  Colleges. 

240  The  report  of  the  special  Legislative  Committee  on  Educa- 
tion says  of  the  State  University:  "This  institution,  unlike  in 
most  other  States,  is  not  included  as  a  part  of  the  public  school 
system,  but  exists  separate  and  apart.  It  has  no  legally  conferred 
power  to  in  any  way  control  the  public  schools,  though  it  has  in 
the  past  exercised  large  control  over  the  high  schools.  Con- 
versely, the  public  school  authorities  have  no  power  to  control  any 
function  of  the  university.  The  only  legal  connection  existing  at 
present  between  it  and  the  public  school  system  lies  in  that  the 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  is  ex-officio  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Regents  for  the  University." 


Conclusion  313 

Had  the  Legislature  been  given  adequate  time  and  left 
unobstructed  to  work  out  this  problem,  much  would 
have  been  accomplished.  As  it  was,  the  Legislature 
went  further  than  it  was  thought,  when  the  session 
opened,  would  be  possible. 

The  suggestions  of  the  representatives  of  the  utility 
corporations  that  the  support  of  the  Agricultural  De- 
partment could  be  materially  reduced  went  unheeded. 
Adequate  support  for  this  department  was  continued. 
The  whole  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature 
was  to  extend  the  department's  activities — to  strengthen 
rather  than  weaken  its  organization. 

None  of  the  Agricultural  Department  bills  passed 
at  the  1921  session  was  particularly  important  in  itself, 
but  in  the  aggregate  they  unquestionably  built  up  the 
department  and  increased  its  effectiveness. 

The  Legislature  met  the  problem  of  relief  for  vet- 
erans, by  adopting  a  policy  of  land  and  home  settle- 
ment for  California  veterans  on  much  the  same  basis 
as  the  State  land  settlement  colony  at  Durham.  To 
that  end,  several  measures  were  enacted. 

The  first  of  these  created  a  Veterans'  Welfare 
Board,  and  provided  for  assistance  to  veterans  in  secur- 
ing farms  not  to  exceed  $15,000  for  unimproved  land, 
$5000  for  buildings  and  $3000  for  implements,  the 
three  loans  to  bear  interest  at  5  per  cent.  They  were 
made  payable  in  forty,  twenty,  and  five  years,  respec- 
tively. For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions 
of  this  act  and  pending  a  proposed  bond  issue, 
$1,000,000  was  appropriated  to  be  used  as  a  revolving 
fund. 


314  Conclusion 

A  second  measure  authorizes  the  Veterans'  Welfare 
Board  to  purchase  for  California  veterans,  inducted 
into  the  army  from  this  State  and  citizens  at  the  time 
of  their  induction,  land  for  agricultural  purposes,  not 
to  exceed  $7500,  or  a  home  not  to  exceed  $5000.  The 
veteran  under  this  act  selects  the  property  he  desires. 
The  board,  after  examining  the  property,  considering 
the  ability  of  the  applicant  to  meet  his  obligations,  etc., 
purchases  it  upon  payment  by  the  applicant  of  10  per 
cent  of  the  purchase  price  in  the  case  of  a  farm,  and 
5  per  cent  if  the  selection  be  a  home.  The  remainder 
of  the  purchase  price  can  be  extended  over  a  period 
not  to  exceed  forty  years,  with  interest  at  5  per  cent. 
A  revolving  fund  of  $2,000,000  was  provided  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  this  measure. 

A  third  measure  provides  for  educational  oppor- 
tunities for  California  veterans.  Here,  the  State  pro- 
vides for  transportation  to  and  from  schools,  payment 
of  the  entire  tuition  fee,  purchase  of  books,  and  $40 
a  month  for  maintenance.  Such  assistance  is  not  to 
exceed  $1000  for  each  veteran  thus  helped. 

Finally,  a  fourth  measure,  upon  which  the  farm 
and  home  settlement  plan  depends,  submits  to  the 
voters  for  their  approval,  a  $10,000,000  bond  issue  to 
provide  a  fund  to  enable  the  Veterans'  Welfare  Board 
to  carry  on  its  work. 

The  plan  of  re-organization  of  the  State  govern- 
ment by  the  1921  Legislature  has  yet  to  demonstrate 
its  success  or  even  its  desirability.  The  announced 
purpose  of  this  reorganization  was  to  promote  econ- 
omy, but  that  economy  is  the  real  purpose  back  of  the 


Conclusion  315 

agitation  may  very  well  be  questioned.  Some  such 
reorganization  has  been  urged  by  every  extravagant, 
tax-dodging  public  utility  corporation  in  the  State  for 
five  years.  It  is  now  known  as  well  as  anything  in 
which  public  utilities  participate  can  be  known,  that 
the  corporations  were  largely  responsible  for  the  at- 
tempted reorganization  in  1919,  and  that  the  com- 
mittees which  had  in  charge  matters  in  which  the 
corporations  were  interested  were  made  up  largely  of 
corporation  agents.  The  origin,  support  and  purposes 
of  such  organizations  as  the  Taxpayers'  Association 
are  now  known,  and  the  character  of  such  "patriotic" 
concerns  as  the  Better  America  Federation  is  estab- 
lished. The  gentlemen  connected  with  such  societies 
for  "the  betterment  of  the  public  service,"  have  long 
clamored  for  State  reorganization.  That  the  sort  of 
organization  which  they  would  have  is  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  State  may,  in  view  of  the  revelations 
of  the  budget  hearing,  very  well  be  questioned. 

That  such  reorganization  will  result  in  any  mate- 
rial saving  to  the  State,  therefore,  is  doubtful ;  that  it 
may  work  confusion,  and  slow  down  needed  work,  is 
possible.  At  worst,  the  reorganization  may  be  regarded 
as  a  weak  yielding  to  importunities  of  special-privilege 
seeking  interests  not  remarkable  for  singleness  of  pur- 
pose, good  citizenship,  or  loyalty  to  American  traditions 
and  standards ;  at  best,  as  a  doubtful  experiment. 

So  much  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  1921  ses- 
sion. It  was  not  remarkable  as  measured  in  terms  of 
the  acts  of  the  session  of  1911  and  1913.  But,  in 
the  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  irresponsible,  well- 


316  Conclusion 

financed,  special-privilege  seeking  class  to  good  legisla- 
tion, and  its  support  of  bad,  it  is  extraordinary  that 
anything  constructive  was  accomplished  at  all. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  outstanding  feature  of 
the  1921  session — the  enormous  waste  entailed  in  the 
interference  of  utility  corporations  and  allied  interests 
in  public  affairs. 

The  agents  of  these  interests,  who  flocked  to  Sacra- 
mento to  the  number  of  several  hundred,  received  for 
their  services  from  $300  a  month  in  the  case  of  clever 
clerks,  to  more  than  $5000  a  month — as  much  as  the 
Governor  of  the  State  receives  in  a  half  year — for 
men  of  ordinary  ability  of  the  type  of  William  Sproule 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  Co.  Three  thousand  dollars 
a  month  is  not  an  unusual  salary  for  public  utility 
agents.  In  addition  to  such  generous  compensations, 
they  are  allowed  expense  accounts  over  which  the  State 
Railroad  Commission  has  apparently  no  jurisdiction, 
and  certainly  does  not  enjoy  supervision.  Fully  one- 
quarter  of  the  time  of  these  high-salaried,  liberally 
financed  men  during  the  year  1921  was  employed  in 
opposing  such  measures  as  the  King  tax  equalization 
bill,  and  supporting  policies  of  the  character  of  the 
Graves  Indeterminate  Franchise  scheme.  The  time  of 
such  well-paid  men  could — if  they  are  worth  their 
wage — very  well  be  devoted  to  work  more  advan- 
tageous to  the  State. 

The  public  is  interested  in  the  salaries  paid  these 
men  and  what  they  do  to  earn  their  salaries,  for  the 
public  is  taxed  to  pay  them.  In  the  same  way,  the 
public  is  interested  in  the  items  of  their  generous 


Conclusion  317 

expense  accounts,  for  those  expense  accounts,  as  are 
the  salaries,  are  allowed  as  the  corporations'  operating 
expenses,  and  for  them,  once  more,  the  public  is  taxed 
to  pay. 

During  the  last  five  years,  the  utility  rate  taxes 
imposed  upon  the  public  have  been  increased  enor- 
mously in  everything  from  the  charge  for  a  street-car 
ride  or  a  telephone  message,  to  the  month's  gas,  or 
electric-light  bill,  or  railroad  ticket.  The  large  salaries 
paid  the  corporation  agents  who  flock  to  Sacramento 
during  legislative  sessions,  is  one  of  the  items  which 
go  to  swell  the  total  of  the  corporations'  expenses. 
These  expenses  give  the  excuse  for  increases  in  the 
corporations'  rate  taxes  imposed  upon  the  public. 

However  valuable  to  the  public  the  services  of  this 
increasing  host  of  utility  rate-eaters  may  be,  payment 
for  such  work  as  they  do  at  legislative  sessions  repre- 
sents waste. 

But  the  waste  does  not  stop  with  salaries  paid  and 
expenses  allowed  men  to  do  what  had  better  be  left 
undone.  The  waste  of  the  time  of  the  Legislature  is 
an  important  item. 

These  well-paid  corporation  agents,  for  example, 
occupied  the  Legislature  for  weeks  with  their  opposi- 
tion to  the  King  tax  bill.  The  Legislature  could,  dur- 
ing that  period,  very  well  have  been  occupied  with 
constructive  work.  But  constructive  work  is  out  of 
the  question  when  the  agents  of  special  privilege  fill 
lobbies  and  corridors,  and  invade  the  Senate  and  As- 
sembly chambers. 

The  first  cost  to  the  State  for  salaries  of  legisla- 


318  Conclusion 

tors  and  attaches  is  about  $3000  a  day.241  Every  day 
the  Legislature  is  occupied  in  meeting  the  attempts  of 
public  utilities  to  secure  special  privileges,  or  to  evade 
responsibilities,  or  to  impose  disastrous  policies  upon 
the  State — such  as  limiting  fruit-quarantine  service  or 
neglecting  the  tuberculosis  problem — involves  a  money 
cost  of  $3000.  Probably  three-fourths  of  the  days 
the  1921  Legislature  was  in  session  were  taken  up  in 
meeting  such  corporation  activities. 

Again,  here  is  waste,  the  cost  of  which  the  public 
pays. 

But  by  far  the  greatest  waste  resulting  from  special- 
privilege  interference  with  the  Legislature,  comes  in 
the  prevention  of  constructive  work.  Such  work  is 
blocked : 

1.  Directly,  by  interference  of  public  utility  agents. 

2.  Indirectly,    by    occupying    the    Legislature    with 
other  matters,  which  leaves  no  time  for  consideration 
of  constructive  policies. 

The  cost  of  this  to  California,  the  waste  of  it, 
cannot  be  estimated  in  dollars  and  cents.  We  can  only 
speculate  upon  what  a  Legislature,  truly  representa- 
tive of  the  people  of  California,  would  be  able  to 
accomplish  for  the  State  if  left  to  itself,  unhampered 
by  special-interest  interference. 

The  1921  session  marked  a  turning  point  in  the 
politics  of  the  State,  perhaps  the  most  important  in 
the  State's  history.  The  1922  general  election  will 
decide  largely  whether  the  special  interests  are  to  be 

241  This  Is  based  on  $100  a  week  each  for  the  legislators.  They 
actually  received  $1000  for  the  session  and  mileage.  The  attaches 
receive  $1000  a  day  as  the  maximum  for  the  two  Houses. 


Conclusion  319 

kept  out  of  State  affairs,  or  whether  there  is  to  be 
a  return  of  corporation-vice  domination,  more  com- 
plete, more  intolerant,  more  irresponsible,  more  blight- 
ing to  the  real  development  of  the  State  than  was 
that  of  the  old  Southern  Pacific  machine,  twelve  years 
ago  repudiated. 


APPENDIX 


Conflicting  Opinions  Worth  Studying 

(See   Page    101) 


Opinion  of  Attorney  General  U.   S.  Webb 

State   of    California,    Office   of   Attorney-General 

Sacramento,  February  25,  1921. 

Hon.   Frank  L.   Coombs,   Chairman,  Joint  Committee,  Reve- 
nue and  Taxation,  Sacramento. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Coombs: — The  King  bill,  now  under  con- 
sideration by  the  Joint  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxa- 
tion, is  designed  to  change  the  rates  of  taxation  upon  the 
properties  assessed  under  the  provisions  of  Section  14  of 
Article  XIII  of  the  State  Constitution. 

Yesterday  I  expressed  before  the  Joint  Committee  the 
view  that  if  this  measure  should  be  adopted  by  the  Legis- 
lature, the  rates  of  taxation  therein  prescribed  would  not  be- 
come effective  for  the  assessment  of  the  present  year  unless 
such  Act  should  be  passed  by  the  Legislature  and  go  into 
effect  prior  to  the  first  Monday  of  March,  1921.  This  view 
was  orally  expressed,  and  you  requested  that  I  give  you  a 
brief  expression  in  writing,  and  in  compliance  I  submit  the 
following: 

Section  14  of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution,  in  its 
original  form,  prescribed  the  rates  of  taxation  upon  the 
properties  to  which  the  section  applied,  and  expressly  de- 
clared that  the  rates  therein  prescribed  were  to  continue  in 
force  "until  changed  by  the  Legislature". 

As  a  matter  of  history,  the  rates  so  established  continued 
to  be  the  rates  applied  until  1913,  in  which  year  the  Legis- 
lature exercised  the  authority  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Con- 
stitution and  established  different  rates  upon  some  of  the 
properties  taxed  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  that  section 
of  the  Constitution.  The  same  authority  was  exercised  by 


the  Legislature  in  1915  and  in  1917,  and  no  question  is 
raised  as  to  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  establish  new  or 
different  rates  at  its  present  session. 

The  rates  of  taxation  established  in  Section  14  of  Article 
XIII  of  the  Constitution  continued  in  force  until  the  enact- 
ment of  the  Legislature  at  its  session  of  1913  became  effec- 
tive, and  the  rates  then  adopted  by  the  Legislature  continued 
to  be  the  rates  until  the  Legislature,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
power  conferred  upon  it,  changed  the  same  from  time  to 
time  as  it  did  in  1915  and  in  1917,  and  the  rates  fixed  by  it 
in  the  latter  year,  and  which  are  now  in  force,  will  continue 
to  be  the  rates  until  the  Legislature  again  changes  them. 

The  pending  measure  proposes  a  change  in  all  of  the 
rates  now  established  by  the  existing  law. 

Section  14  of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution  makes 
the  taxes  prescribed  by  the  existing  law  a  lien  upon  the 
property  assessed,  which  lien  attaches  on  the  first  Monday 
of  March  of  the  year  of  the  assessment.  The  language  by 
which  this  is  accomplished  is  as  follows: 

"The  taxes  herein  provided  for  shall  become  a  lien  on 
the  first  Monday  in  March  of  each  year." 

The  properties  assessed  through  this  method  comprise 
operative  property  of  certain  utilities,  certain  property  of 
insurance  companies,  bank  stock  and  corporate  franchises. 
The  rate  of  taxation  upon  the  properties  of  the  utilities  is 
applied  by  a  percentage  of  their  gross  receipts  for  the  cal- 
endar year  preceding  the  first  Monday  in  March.  Likewise 
this  rate  of  taxation  upon  properties  of  insurance  companies 
is  computed  upon  a  percentage  of  the  gross  premiums,  less 
certain  specified  deductions,  collected  during  the  calendar 
year  preceding  the  first  Monday  in  March,  while  the  taxes 
to  be  paid  by  banks  is  a  rate  of  taxation  upon  the  value  of 
their  shares  of  capital  stock  upon  the  first  Monday  of 
March,  such  value  being  ascertained  and  computed  in  the 
manner  and  method  prescribed  by  the  Constitution. 

Pursuant  to  statute,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  Board  of 
Equalization  to  make  the  requisite  computations  to  ascertain 
the  amount  of  taxes  due  from  the  properties  assessed  under 


Ill 

this  method  and  for  which  the  lien  attaches  on  the  first 
Monday  in  March.  Obviously  this  labor  cannot  be  per- 
formed on  the  first  Monday  of  March.  Section  3668  of  the 
Political  Code  provides: 

"The  State  Board  of  Equalization  must  meet  at  the  State 
Capitol  on  the  first  Monday  of  March  in  each  year.  .  .  . 
Between  the  first  Monday  in  March  and  the  third  Monday 
before  the  first  Monday  in  July  the  board  must  assess  and 
levy  the  taxes  as  and  in  the  manner  provided  for  in  Sec- 
tion 14,  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State,  and 
sections  of  this  Code  enacted  to  carry  the  same  into  effect." 

The  taxes  so  levied  and  assessed  become  due  and  pay- 
able on  the  first  day  of  July. 

There  would  seem  little  room  for  question  but  that  the 
rates  of  taxation  in  force  pursuant  to  existing  law  on  the 
first  Monday  of  March  are  the  rates  to  be  used  by  the 
Board  of  Equalization  in  computing  the  taxes  for  which  the 
lien  attached  on  that  day.  The  obligation  of  the  taxpayer 
to  the  State  is  the  amount  secured  by  this  lien,  computed 
at  the  rates  then  in  force,  in  the  manner  provided  by  the 
constitutional  provision,  and  it  would  seem  plain  that  the 
payment  of  that  amount,  when  payable,  would  discharge  the 
taxpayer's  obligation,  regardless  of  any  change  that  might 
be  made  in  the  law  subsequent  to  the  first  Monday  in 
March. 

That  the  tax  rate  to  be  applied  in  the  assessment  of 
properties  for  local  purposes  is,  in  accordance  with  the  com- 
mand of  the  statute,  fixed  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors  in 
September  of  each  year  has  been  mentioned  as  a  circum- 
stance which  it  is  contended  supports  the  view  that  if  the 
pending  tax  measure  is  not  adopted  until  after  the  first 
Monday  in  March  the  rates  therein  prescribed  may  be 
legally  used  as  the  rates  for  the  present  year.  This  condi- 
tion, however,  I  think  furnishes  no  support  for  such  con- 
struction. It  will  be  remembered  that  the  tax  rate  fixed  by 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  for  local  purposes  is  fixed  an- 
nually and  that  it  is  a  rate  for  the  single  year  only  and  is 
applicable  to  the  assessment  of  that  year  only.  On  the 


IV 

first  Monday  in  March  there  is  not  an  existing  county  tax 
rate  and  by  provision  of  the  statute  the  tax  rate  applicable 
to  the  assessment  which  becomes  effective  as  of  that  date 
is  to  be  fixed  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors  in  September 
following. 

As  pointed  out  to  you  yesterday,  the  rate  of  taxation 
for  State  purposes  is  fixed  by  law,  and  is  a  continuing  rate, 
and  exists  as  the  law's  rate  until  changed  by  the  Legislature. 
If  no  legislation  on  the  subject  be  enacted  prior  to  the  first 
Monday  in  March,  on  that  day  there  would  be  in  force  and 
effect  the  rates  carried  by  the  present  law.  For  local  taxa- 
tion the  rate  is  an  annual  one,  applicable  only  to  the  assess- 
ments of  the  year  in  which  such  rate  is  adopted,  while  for 
State  purposes  the  rates  fixed  by  the  last  legislative  enact- 
ment on  the  subject  continue  from  year  to  year  until 
changed  by  the  Legislature. 

It  is  my  conclusion  that  in  the  assessment  of  properties 
under  Section  14  of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution,  the 
rates  in  force  on  the  first  Monday  in  March  would  be  the 
rates  applicable  for  the  assessment  in  1921,  and  that  any 
change  in  rates  made  by  the  present  Legislature  through 
an  enactment  taking  effect  subsequent  to  the  first  Monday 
in  March,  1921,  will  be  first  applicable  for  the  assessment 
to  b~  made  in  1922. 

Very  truly  yours. 

U.  S.  WEBB. 


Opinion  of  Former  Supreme  Justice  M.  C.  Sloss 

Law    Offices    of   Sloss,    Ackerman    &    Bradley, 
Mills  Building. 

San  Francisco,  February  22,  1921. 
Tax  Investigation  and   Economy  League,   San   Francisco. 

Gentlemen: — You  have  asked  for  my  opinion  on  the  fol- 
lowing question:  The  Legislature  of  1921,  when  it  reassem- 
bles, will  have  before  it  a  bill  to  increase  the  rates  of  taxa- 
tion imposed  upon  certain  classes  of  corporations  for  State 
purposes.  Does  the  Constitution  require  that  such  bill  must 


become  a  law  on  or  before  the  first  Monday  of  March  in 
order  to  be  effective  in  fixing  the  rates  of  taxation  for  the 
fiscal  year  beginning  July  1,  1921? 

In  my  opinion,  the  Constitution  does  not  so  require,  and 
an  Act  increasing  or  diminishing  the  rates  now  in  force 
would  be  equally  valid  and  operative  whether  enacted  before 
or  after  the  first  Monday  of  March. 

Section  14  of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution,  which 
created  the  present  method  of  levying  taxes  upon  certain 
classes  of  companies  for  State  purposes,  fixes  a  scale  of 
percentages  of  gross  receipts,  gross  premiums,  or  value  of 
shares,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  be  paid  by  the  several  classes 
of  companies  as  an  annual  tax.  In  Subdivision  (f)  of  Sec- 
tion 14,  of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  provided 
that:  "The  rates  of  taxation  fixed  in  this  section  shall  re- 
main in  force  until  changed  by  the  Legislature,  two-thirds 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses  voting 
in  favor  thereof.  The  taxes  herein  provided  for  shall  be- 
come a  lien  on  the  first  Monday  in  March  of  each  year 
after  the  adoption  of  this  section,  and  shall  become  due  and 
payable  on  the  first  Monday  in  July  thereafter." 

There  is  nothing  in  the  language  just  quoted,  or  in  the 
framework  of  the  section  as  a  whole,  to  limit  the  power  of 
the  Legislature  in  making  changes  in  rates  to  a  period  of 
time  prior  to  the  first  Monday  of  March.  Those  who  sug- 
gest that  such  restriction  should  be  read  into  the  Constitu- 
tion seek  to  find  a  basis  for  their  contention  in  the  provision 
that  the  taxes  become  a  lien  "on  the  first  Monday  of  March 
of  each  year."  But  the  fact  that  the  taxes  become  a  lien  at 
a  given  time  has  no  bearing  on  the  power  of  the  Legislature 
to  change  the  rate  thereafter. 

There  is  no  necessary  connection  of  time  between  the 
attaching  of  the  tax  lien  and  the  determination  of  the 
amount  of  the  tax.  A  tax  may,  and,  under  the  general  tax 
system  of  this  State,  does  become  a  lien  long  before  the 
amount  of  the  tax  is  ascertained.  This  will  readily  appear 
from  a  consideration  of  the  method  of  taxation  applicable  to 
all  property  prior  to  the  adoption  of  Section  14  of  Article 


VI 

XIII  of  the  Constitution,  and  still  applicable  to  the  taxation 
for  county  purposes  of  property  not  within  the  scope  of 
that  section. 

Under  the  general  tax  provisions  of  the  Political  Code 
the  lien  of  a  tax  attaches,  like  the  lien  of  the  taxes  under 
discussion,  "as  of  the  first  Monday  of  March  in  each  year." 
(Political  Code,  Section  3718.)  Yet  the  assessment  is  made 
between  the  first  Monday  of  March  and  the  first  Monday 
of  July  (Political  Code,  Section  3652),  the  Supervisors  equal- 
ize the  assessments  between  the  first  and  third  Mondays  of 
July  (Political  Code,  Section  3672),  and  the  actual  levying 
of  taxes  by  the1  Supervisors  does  not  take  place  until  the 
first  Monday  of  September  (Political  Code,  Section  3714). 
The  amount  of  the  tax  is,  therefore,  not  fixed  when  the  lien 
attaches,  but  this  uncertainty  does  not  prevent  the  lien  from 
having  full  force  and  effect. 

If  a  Legislature  may  authorize  county,  and  other  officers, 
to  fix  the  rate  and  amount  of  tax  after  the  lien  has  come 
into  being,  there  is  no  reason  why  it,  itself,  cannot  change 
the  rate  after  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  lien,  where  it  is 
given  constitutional  power,  unlimited  as  to  time,  to  make 
such  change. 

It  is  a  fundamental  rule  of  interpretation  of  State  Con- 
stitutions that  the  Legislature  has  all  powers  except  those 
expressly  withheld  from  it  by  the  organic  law,  and  in  the 
absence  of  any  limitation  upon  the  grant  of  power  to  make 
changes  in  the  rates  of  taxation,  no  restrictions  upon  the  full 
exercise  of  that  power  should  be  raised  by  construction. 

The  taxpayer  has  no  vested  right  in  the  existing  rate,  at 
any  time  prior,  at  least,  to  the  time  when  the  tax  becomes 
payable.  The  lien  is  created  for  the  protection  of  the  State. 
Its  purpose  is  to  give  the  State  security  for  such  amount 
of  tax  as  may  lawfully  be  collectible  and  may  subsequently 
be  found  to  be  due. 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  prior  practice  of  the  Legislature 
and  of  the  State  authorities  has  been  in  accord  with  these 
views.  The  rates  fixed  by  Section  14  of  Article  XIII  have 
been  changed  by  the  Legislature  on  several  occasions.  The 


Vll 

last  changes  were  those  made  by  an  Act  approved  May  11, 
1917,  Statutes  of  1917,  page  336.  By  this  Act  the  rates  of 
taxation  for  express  companies,  telegraph  and  telephone 
companies  and  banks  were  reduced  by  various  amounts,  and 
the  rates  for  gas  and  electric  companies  were  increased  from 
5.25  per  cent  to  5.6  per  cent.  This  Act,  as  stated  above,  was 
passed  in  May,  long  after  the  first  Monday  of  March.  Its 
validity  has  never,  so  far  as  I  am  advised,  been  questioned; 
yet,  if  there  be  merit  in  the  contention  that  any  change  of 
rate  must  be  made  by  Act  adopted  on  or  before  the  first 
Monday  of  March,  it  must  follow  that  for  the  past  four 
years,  or  at  any  rate,  for  the  year  1917,  the  State  has  un- 
lawfully exacted  from  the  gas  and  electric  companies  thirty- 
five  one-hundredths  of  one  per  cent  of  their  gross  receipts, 
and  that  it  has,  likewise,  failed  to  collect  the  full  tax  due 
from  express  companies,  telegraph  and  telephone  companies 
and  banks. 

Whatever  may  seem  to  be  the  needs  of  the  present  situa- 
tion, it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  establishment  of 
the  rule  limiting  the  power  of  the  Legislature  in  this  matter 
would  carry  with  it  the  danger  that  at  some  future  time 
when  an  emergency  may  require  the  raising  of  additional 
revenue  after  the  first  Monday  of  March,  the  Legislature 
and  the  fiscal  authorities  might  find  themselves  unable  to 
take  advantage  of  the  broad  powers  conferred  by  Section  14 
of  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution. 

The  brief  time  allowed  for  the  preparation  of  this  opin- 
ion precludes  me  from  citing  and  discussing  the  authorities 
bearing  on  the  subject. 

Very  truly  yours, 

M.  C.  SLOSS. 


Vlll 


Ke^s  to  Tables  of  Votes 


KEY  TO   TABLE   I,   SHOWING   SENATE  VOTES  ON    KING   TAX 
BILLS,   S.    B.    146  AND   S.    B.   855 

A. — Vote  on  Section  5  of  Committee  Amendment  No.  12 
to  the  first  King  Tax  bill  (Senate  bill  146).  The  support- 
ers of  the  King  Tax  bill  voted  for  this  amendment;  the 
opponents  of  the  bill  voted  against  it. 

B. — Vote  on  McDonald's  motion  to  postpone  action  on 
the  first  King  Tax  bill  (S.  B.  146).  The  opponents  of  the 
bill  voted  yes  on  this  motion;  the  supporters  of  the  bill 
voted  no. 

C— Final  vote  on  the  first  King  Tax  bill  (S.  B.  146). 
The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents  of  the 
bill  voted  no. 

D.— Final  vote  on  second  King  Tax  bill  (S.  B.  855). 
The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents  voted  no. 


KEY    TO    TABLE    II,    SHOWING    SENATE    VOTES    ON 
PROHIBITION-ENFORCEMENT    ISSUES 

A.— When  the  Prohibition-Enforcement  bill  (A.  B.  849) 
came  up  for  consideration  in  the  Senate,  Inman  moved  a 
postponement  of  one  week.  This  was  opposed  by  support- 
ers of  the  bill.  The  opponents  to  the  bill  voted  in  the 
affirmative,  and  the  supporters  in  the  negative. 

B. — Senate  vote  on  committee  amendments  to  the  Pro- 
hibition-Enforcement bill  (A.  B.  849)  by  which  the  amend- 
ments which  the  opponents  of  the  measure  had  added  in  the 
Assembly  were  stricken  out,  and  the  bill  restored  to  the 
form  in  which  it  had  been  originally  introduced.  The  sup- 
porters of  the  bill  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  opponents 
of  the  bill  in  the  negative. 

C. — Senator  Chamberlin  offered  an  amendment  to  the 
Prohibition-Enforcement  Act,  providing  that  it  should  not 


IX 

go  into  effect  until  it  could  be  voted  upon  at  the  November 
election  in  1922,  and  making  other  amendments.  The  oppo- 
nents of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  supporters  of  the  bill  voted 
no. 

D. — Senate    vote    on   the    passage    of   Assembly    bill   849. 
The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents,  no. 


KEY    TO    TABLE    III,    SHOWING    ASSEMBLY    VOTES    ON    THE 

FIRST    AND    SECOND    KING    TAX    BILLS,    S.    B.    146 

AND   S.    B.   855 

A. — When  Senate  bill  146  was  returned  from  the  commit- 
tee to  the  Assembly,  its  supporters  attempted  to  have  it 
voted  upon  immediately.  A  motion  to  that  effect  was  made. 
The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  for  the  motion;  the  oppo- 
nents voted  against  it.  A  two-thirds  vote  was  necessary  to 
bring  the  measure  to  an  immediate  vote. 

B. — Weber  moved  that  S.  B.  146  be  made  a  special  order 
for  February  28,  after  the  legislative  recess.  The  speaker 
ruled  the  motion  out  of  order.  Weber  then  moved  to  lay 
the  bill  on  the  table.  His  motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  20  to  47.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  voted  for  Weber's 
motion;  the  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  against  it. 

C. — Vote  on  Hurley's  motion  to  refer  S.  B.  146  to  Com- 
mittee on  Revenue  and  Taxation  with  instructions  to  report 
the  bill  back  after  the  legislative  recess.  The  supporters  of 
the  bill  opposed  this  motion;  the  opponents  of  the  bill 
voted  for  it. 

D. — First  vote  on  passage  of  S.  B.  146.  The  supporters 
of  the  King  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents  voted  no. 

E.— Final  vote  on  first  King  Tax  bill  (S.  B.  146).  The 
supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents  voted  no. 

F. — Vote  on  Graves'  motion  to  excuse  Cleveland  at  the 
time  the  second  King  Tax  bill  (S.  B.  855)  was  pending  in 
the  Assembly.  Had  Cleveland  been  excused  for  the  week, 
there  would  have  been  but  53  votes  in  favor  of  the  bill 
when  it  came  to  final  vote,  and  the  bill  would  have  been 


defeated.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  voted  yes  on  this  mo- 
tion, and  the  supporters  voted  no. 

G. — First  vote  on  passage  of  Senate  bill  855  in  Assem- 
bly. The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents 
voted  no. 

H. — Vote  on  Pettis'  motion  to  postpone  vote  on  S.  B. 
855  at  a  time  when  vote  on  bill  would  have  meant  its  defeat. 
The  supporters  of  the  bill  voted  yes  on  Pettis'  motion;  the 
opponents  voted  no. 

I. — Final  vote  on  passage  of  S.  B.  855.  The  supporters 
of  the  bill  voted  yes;  the  opponents  voted  no.  This  is  the 
vote  by  which  the  bill  finally  passed  the  Assembly. 


KEY    TO    TABLE    IV,    SHOWING    ASSEMBLY    VOTES    ON 
PROHIBITION-ENFORCEMENT    ISSUES 

A. — When  the  Badaracco  Assembly  Joint  Resolution  came 
up  for  adoption,  Assemblyman  T.  M.  Wright  moved  that 
it  be  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations.  The 
"drys"  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  "wets"  in  the  neg- 
ative. 

B. — Vote  on  the  Badaracco  resolution.  The  "wets"  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  the  "drys"  in  the  negative. 

C. — Vote  on  Hornblower's  motion  for  immediate  adop- 
tion of  the  Hornblower  resolution  (A.  J.  R.  22).  The  "wets" 
voted  for  this  motion,  and  the  "drys"  against  it. 

D. — Vote  on  Greene's  motion  to  amend  Assembly  Joint 
Resolution  22  by  adding  a  clause  providing  revenue  taxes 
on  liquors.  The  "wets"  supported  this  amendment;  the 
"drys"  voted  against  it. 

E. — Vote  on  T.  M.  Wright's  motion  adding  to  the  Horn- 
blower  resolution  the  following  words:  "provided,  that  in 
no  event  shall  the  alcoholic  content  be  sufficient  to  produce 
an  intoxicating  beverage."  The  "wets"  opposed  this  amend- 
ment; the  "drys"  supported  it. 

F. — Final  vote  on  adoption  of  Hornblower  resolution. 


XI 

G. — Vote  on  Eksward's  amendment  to  the  Prohibition- 
Enforcement  bill,  by  which  it  was  proposed  to  suspend  the 
operation  of  the  measure  until  it  could  be  voted  upon  in 
November,  1922.  The  "wets"  supported  this  amendment; 
the  "drys"  voted  against  it. 

H. — Vote  by  which  the  Prohibition-Enforcement  bill  was 
passed  as  amended  by  Eksward.  Many  who  had  been  voting 
with  the  "wets"  voted  with  the  "drys"  for  this  measure,  as 
it  included  the  provisions  of  the  Eksward  amendment. 

I. — Vote  to  concur  in  Senate  amendments  to  the  Prohibi- 
tion-Enforcement measure,  by  which  the  Eksward  amend- 
ments were  stricken  from  the  bill  and  the  Act  restored  to 
the  form  in  which  the  "drys"  had  introduced  it  in  the  As- 
sembly. The  "drys"  voted  yes;  the  "wets"  voted  no. 


TABLE  I — Senate  Vote  on  King  Bills 


FOR  KEY 
SEE  PAGE  Vin 
OF 
APPENDIX 

A 

B 

C 

D 

TOTALS 

Vote  on  Sec.  5,  Amend- 
ment 12,  S.  B.  146. 

a 
o 

£ 
o 

Is 
i« 

&* 

Vote  on  Passage  S.  B. 
146. 

Vote  on  Passage  S.  B. 
855. 

For  King  Tax  Bills. 

Against  King  Tax  Bills 

-w 

< 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

5 

Senators 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

F 

A 

Allen  

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

4 
3 
0 
4 
0 

0 
1 
4 
0 

4 

1 
1 
1 
0 
4 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Anderson  

Arbuckle  

Boggs  

Breed  

Burnett  

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A* 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A* 

3 
3 
3 
4 
0 

Canepa.  .  .  . 

Carr,  F.  M  

Carr,  W.  J  

Chamberlin  

Crowley  

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

3 
4 
3 
4 
4 

Dennett  

Duncan  

Eden  

Flaherty  

Gates  

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

0 

1 
4 
0 
4 

4 
3 
0 
4 
0 

Godsil  

Harris  

Hart  

Ingram 

Inman  .... 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

4 
2 
4 
4 
4 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

4 
3 
0 
0 

1 

Irwin  

Johnson  

Jones  

King  

Lyon  

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

0 
1 
4 
4 
3 

McDonald  

Nelson  

Osborne.  .  .  . 

Otis  

Purkitt  

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

0 
4 
0 
4 
0 

2 
0 

4 
0 
4 

0 
0 

0 
4 

50 

Rigdon  

Rominger  

Rush.  T. 

Sample  

Scott  

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

4 
4 

4 
0 

Sharkey  

Shearer  

Slater  

Ynnkin  .... 

Totals  

24 

13 

17 

21 

30 

10 

28 

12 

105 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  King  Bills. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  King  Bills. 

_*Chamberlin,  against  both  King  Bills,  voted  for  them  to  enable  him  to  move  to  re- 
consider vote  by  which  they  were  passed. 


TABLE  II — Senate  Vote  on  Prohibition  Enforcement 


A 

B 

C 

D 

TOTALS 

FOR  KEY 
SEE  PAGE  Vm 
OF 
APPENDIX 

Inman's  motion  to  de- 
lay vote  on  A.  B. 
849. 

To  eliminate  Assembly 
Amendments  from 
A.  B.  849. 

Chamberlin  Amend- 
ment to  A.  B.  849. 

*o 

<D 

M 

fid 

•»* 

a00 

°« 

I"1 

w  1  For  Prohibition  En- 
forcement. 

Against  Prohibition 
Enforcement. 

-** 

< 

Senators 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

A 

Allen  

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

4 

4 
4 
4 

1 

3 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

13 

Anderson  

Boggs  

Breed  

Burnett  

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

4 
2 

3 

4 
3 

2 

4 

4 

3 
1 

4 

3 

3 

3 
3 

3 

2 

Canepa  

Carr,  F.  M. 

Carr,  W.  J  

Chamberlin  

Crowley  

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

4 
4 
4 

Dennett  

Duncan.  .               .    . 

Eden  

Flaherty 

Gates.  .  . 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

4 

4 
3 
4 

4 

4 
4 
4 

Godsil  

Harris.  .  . 

Hart  

Ingram  

Inman  

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

Irwin  

Johnson.  .  . 

Jones  

King.  . 

Lyon  

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

3 

4 
4 
1 

1 
4 
1 
2 

McDonald  

Nelson  

Osborne  

Otis  

Purkitt  

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

Rigdon  

Rominger  

Rush  

Sample  

Scott  

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

3 

4 
1 

4 
4 

59 

Sharkey  

Shearer  

Slater  

Yonkin  

Totals  

12 

21 

22 

15 

17 

21 

24 

15 

88 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  Prohibition  Enforcement. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  Prohibition  Enforcement. 


TABLE  III — Assembly  Vote  on  King  Bills 


A 

B 

C 

D 

£ 

F 

G 

H 

I 

Totals 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE  IX 
OF 
APPENDIX 

To  put  S.  B.  146  on 
Immediate  Passage 

a 
o 

<o 
•* 

« 

ad 

*i 

—    03 
0^ 

H 

To  send  S.  B.  146  to 
Committee. 

First  Vote  on  S.B.  146. 

M 

02 

d 
o 

I' 

—  so 
<a-# 
d  *™* 

S 

To  Excuse  Cleveland. 

First  Vote  on  S.B.  855. 

a 
o 

• 

1 

o 

g"5 

IS 

n     • 

£« 
^ 

8 

00 

M 

CO 

-S 

o 

|  For  King  Tax  Bills. 

Against  King  Tax  Bills  . 

*» 

< 

Assemblymen 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Ho 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Ye* 

No 

Anderson.  .  .  . 
Badaracco.  .  . 
Badham  
Baker... 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

I 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

s 
l) 
1 
0 
0 

1 

7 
8 
9 
9 

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

Beal  

Benton  .  .  . 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 
4. 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

0 
B 

0 
0 
0 

9 

9 
9 
9 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Bernard.  .    . 

Bishop  

Bromley  
Brooks  .  .  . 

Broughton.  .  . 
Burns  

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

9 
1 
9 
9 
4 

0 
6 
0 
0 
4 

0 
2 
0 
0 

1 

Christian.  .  .  . 
Cleary  

Cleveland.  .  . 

Colburn  
Coombs  
Crittenden.  . 

Cummings.  .  . 
Eksward.  .  .  . 

W 

V 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

9 
9 
9 

5 

8 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

Fellom  

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

8 
9 
0 
0 
0 

1 
0 
9 
9 
9 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Ful  wider.  .  .  . 
Graves  

Gray. 

Greene  .  . 

Hart  

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

( 

1 

9 
( 

9 
0 
8 
0 
1 

0 
2 
0 
0 

2 

Havves  .  . 

Heck  

Heisinger.  .  .  . 
Hornblower.  . 

Hughes  

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

W 

A 

9 
1 

9 

f 

9 

C 

1 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Hurley  

Johnson  

Johnston.  .  .  . 

Jones,  G.  L... 
Jones,  I  
Kline.  . 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
W 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

t 
1 

S 

! 

0 
0 
0 

f 

0 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

Lee,  G.  W.  .  . 
Lee,  I.  A  

Totals  

22 

IS 

17 

21 

17 

23 

91 

11 

21 

15 

17 

IS 

25 

15 

23 

11 

20 

14 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  King  Tax  Bills. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  King  Tax  Bills. 

Table  Concluded  on  Next  Page 


TABLE  III  Concluded — Assembly  Vote  on  King  Bills 


A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

Totals 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE  IX 
OF 
APPENDIX 

To  put  S.  B.  146  on 
Immediate  Passage 

a 
o 

CO 

•* 
ffl 

00 

4 

—  03 

0^ 

EH 

To  send  S.  B.  146  to 
Committee. 

First  Vote  on  S.B.  146. 

«' 

GO 

a 
o 

1. 

•—*  O 
o3^ 
C  i"^ 

£ 

To  Excuse  Cleveland. 

First  Vote  on  S.B.  855. 

a 
o 

o 
o 

• 
g«9 

2io 

BOO 

!« 
&* 

S 

00 

n 

02 
J 

2 

"rt 

a 
£ 

m 

•s. 

I 

9 

B 

5 
h 

|  Against  King  Tax  Bills. 

"fl 

1 

Assemblymen 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

9 
4 
0 
0 

8 

0 
5 
9 
9 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Long  

Manning  .... 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

9 
1 
9 
2 
9 

0 
8 

0 
(i 
0 

0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

McCloskey.  . 
McDowell.  .  . 
Me  Gee  

McKeen  

McPherson.  . 
Merriam.  .  .  . 
Mitchell  
Morris  
Morrison.  .  .  . 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 
A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

2 
2 
2 
0 
8 

7 
7 
5 
8 
0 

0 
0 
2 

1 
1 

Parker  

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

*F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

*F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 

7 
9 

0 

9 
9 

0 
0 

8 

0 
0 

2 
0 

1 
*0 
0 

Parkinson.  .  . 
Pedrotti  
Pettis  

Prendergast.  . 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

8 

1 
9 
8 
0 

1 

6 
0 
1 

0 

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

Roberts  
Rosenshiae.  . 
ROSS  

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

9 
4 
9 
9 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 
3 

0 
5 
0 
0 

0 

Schmidt  

Smith  . 

Spalding.  .  .  . 
Spenoe  

Stevens  

F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 
A 

2 
0 
1 

9 
7 

7 
9 
8 
0 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

Warren  

Weber 

Webster  
Wendering  .  . 

Weet  

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

8 

a 

9 
9 

9 

0 
4 
0 
0 
0 

1 

2 
0 
0 
0 

White 

Windrem  .... 
Wright,  H.W. 
Wright,T.  M. 

Totals  
Brt.Fwd... 

•>C> 
22 

13 

IS 

13 
17 

24 

23 

14 
17 

23 
22 

25 
20 

14 

14 

24 
25 

15 

us 

S 
17 

25 

18 

27 
26 

13 
15 

24 
22 

13 
14 

28 
20 

12 
14 

Grnd  Ttls.  . 

48 

31 

30 

47 

31 

45 

51 

28 

49 

30 

25 

43 

52 

28 

M 

27 

54 

20 

438 

253 

29 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  King  Tax  Bills. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  King  Tax  Bill. 

*Pettis,  for  both  King  Bills,  voted  against  them  to  move  reconsideration  of  vote  by 
which  they  were  defeated. 


TABLE  IV — Assembly  Vote  on  Prohibition 


A 

13 

C 

E 

I 

I 

G 

U 

I 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE  X 
OF 
APPENDIX 

to 

tf 

i-i 
•< 

& 

"c 

M 

L 
» 

£ 

i 

s 

1 
•j 

5 

'o 

§ 

'i 

0 

1 

a 
° 

| 

0 

34 

-3 

< 

To  Vote  Immediately 

M' 
^ 

aj 

-5 

<i 

a 
o 

Vote  on  Greene  Amend- 

ment  to  A.  J.  K.  22. 

Voteon  Wright  Amend- 

N 
N 

xj 

-5 

< 

0 
+^ 

a 
§ 

Final  Vote  on  A.  J.  R. 

r-i 

M 

I 

J2 

a* 
a 

•J 
« 

*• 

c- 

> 

i 

i 

j 

3 
J 

3 

3    . 

3» 

ti 

• 
1 

§ 

00 

« 
<i 

d 

| 

< 

Vote  to  Concur  in  Sen- 

| 

a 

0 

1 

1 

3 

S 
I 

For  Prohib.  Enforcem. 

AgainstProhib.Enfmt. 

Absent. 

Assemblymen 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

, 

Anderson.  .  .  . 
Badaracco.  .  . 
Badham  
Baker  
Beal  .  . 

A 
A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

A 
| 

F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

4 

8 
7 
1 

4 
9 
1 

2 

S 

1 

Benton  

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

E 

9 

f, 

Bernard  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

0 

Bishop 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

j 

A 

q 

Bromley  
Brooks  

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

7 

S 

1 

1 

1 

Broughton  .  .  . 
Burns  

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

8 

8 

1 
1 

Christian..  .  . 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

D 

9 

Cleveland.  .  . 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

F 

A 

i 

8 

Colburn  

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

P 

7 

2 

A 

A 

\ 

j 

F 

A 

A 

1 

6 

? 

Crittenden.  .  . 
Cummings  .  .  . 
Eksward.  .  .  . 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

V 

A 
A 

7 

a 

2 

8 

1 
1 

Fellom  

A 

A 

\ 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

q 

Fulwider.  .  .  . 
Graves  

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 

i 

8 

7 
3 

1 

Gray  

A 

A 

A 

j 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

q 

Greene  

A 

A 

\ 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

8 

1 

Hart  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

V 

F 

F 

( 

Hawes  

A 

jj 

j 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

8 

1 

Heck  

A 

A 

| 

J 

A 

A 

A 

A 

8 

1 

Heisinger  .... 
Hornblower.  . 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

1 

9 

Hughes  
Hume  

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

s 
i 

Hurley.  .    . 

A 

A 

j 

^ 

A 

A 

^ 

A 

A 

q 

Johnson  

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

8 

1 

Johnston.  .  .  . 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

8 

1 

Jones,  G.  L... 
Jones,  I  
Kline.  . 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
7? 

A 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

9 

7 
X 

2 

1 

Lee,  G.  W...  . 
Lee,  I.  A  

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

A 

F 

F 

A 

F 

A 

9 

9 

Total  

12 

IT, 

21 

18 

if. 

19 

20 

19 

20 

IS 

18 

21 

20 

19 

21 

14 

21 

IS 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  Prohibition  Enforcement. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  Prohibition  Enforcement. 

Table  Concluded  on  Next  Page 


TABLE  IV  Concluded — Assembly  Vote  on  Prohibition 


A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

Totals 

FOR  KEY 
SEE 
PAGE  X 
OF 
APPENDIX 

To  Re-Refer  A.  J.  R.  5 
to  Committee. 

"3 

1 
"a 
o 

5* 

a« 

°^ 

J«i 

To  Vote  Immediately 
on  A.  J.  R.  22. 

Vote  on  Greene  Amend- 
ment to  A.  J.  R.  22. 

Vote  on  Wright  A  mend- 
ment  to  A.  J.  R.  22. 

Final  Vote  on  A.  J.  R. 
22. 

V  o  t  e  o  n  Eksward 
Amendment  A.  B. 
849. 

A.  B.  849  Passed  as 
Amended. 

Vote  to  Concur  in  Sen- 
ate Amendments. 

For  Prohib.  Enforcem. 

Against  Prohib.Enf  mt. 

S 
1 

Assemblymen 

Ym 

Nfl 

Yes 

No 

Ye, 

Xo 

Yes 

Xo 

r« 

Xo 

fa 

No 

KB 

Xo 

fa 

Xo 

fa 

Xo 

A 

A 
A 
A 
A 

A 
A 
A 
A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 
A 

A 

t 

F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

1 

5 
B 

8 

7 
3 
2 

g 

2 
1 
2 

Manning.  .  .  . 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 
V 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

¥ 
F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 
t 

A 

8 

9 

a 

9 

9 

8 

1 

McCloskey  .  . 
McDowell.  .  . 
McGee  

McKeen  

McPherson.  . 
Merriam.  .  .  . 
Mitchell  
Morris  

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

9 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

A 

8 

9 

8 

7 
8 

1 
1 
2 
1 

Morrison  .... 

Parker  

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 

F 

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

9 

3 
5 

B 

B 

2 

1 

4 
4 

Parkinson.  .  . 
Pedrotti  
Pettis  

Prendergast.  . 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 

A 

A 
A 

F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

4 
9 
2 

4 

8 

9 
7 

1 

1 

Roberts  
Rosenshine.  . 
Ross  

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 
A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 

F 

t 

F 

F 

A 

F 

F 
F 

A 

9 

4 

9 
1 

9 
7 

5 

1 

Schmidt  
Smith  

Spalding.  .  .  . 

F 

F 

A 
A 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

F 
F 

A 

A 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 
A 

A 

A 
A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 

A 

A 

F 

F 

A 
A 

9 

4 
8 

8 
B 

5 

1 
1 

Weber  

Webster  
Wendering.  .  . 

West 

F 
F 
F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 

F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 

A 

A 

F 

F 
F 
F 

A 

F 
F 
F 

F 

F 
F 
F 

F 
F 

F 
F 
F 

F 

A 

1 
7 

9 
9 

0 

8 

2 

White  
Windrem  .... 
Wright,  H.W. 
Wright,  T.M. 

Totals.  .  .  . 
Brt.  Fwd... 

13 

12 

22 

u 

22 
21 

it; 
18 

17 
1C 

14 
19 

20 
20 

17 
19 

14 
20 

21 
18 

21 

18 

18 
21 

20 

20 

20 
19 

20 
24 

10 
14 

21 
21 

1(3 
18 

Grnd  Ttls.  . 

2o 

47 

43 

84 

83 

33 

40 

86 

34 

39 

39 

80 

40 

39 

50 

24 

42 

34 

333 

339 

48 

Character  "F"  indicates  vote  for  Prohibition  Enforcement. 
Character  "A"  indicates  vote  against  Prohibition  Enforcement. 


INDEX 


Agriculture,  Department  of — 
Pages  35,  40,  145 

Alberger,   W.   R. — Footnote  48 

Alfalfa  Weevil— Page  139. 

Allen,  Newton  M. — Footnotes  66, 
81,  84,  87,  88,  107,  118,  124, 
125,  151,  158,  166,  177,  220, 
235 

Ambrose,  Thomas  L. — Page  16; 
footnotes  118,  151,  181. 

Anderson,  A.  P.,  Senator — Page 
60;  footnotes  166,  176,  177, 
178,  233,  235 

Anderson,  Frank  B. — Pages  49, 
52 

Anderson,  F.  W.,  Assemblyman 
—Footnotes  42,  43,  45,  66, 
67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  118, 
119,  127,  128,  139,  146,  151, 
153,  177,  178,  212,  217,  219, 
232 

Anti-Prize  Fight  Law— Pages 
195,  196 

Anti-Single  Tax  League— Pages 
191,  194,  197,  198,  207,  209; 
footnote  148 

Anti-Saloon  League— Pages  236, 
237,  239,  241,  243,  249,  252, 
254,  257,  258,  262,  266,  270, 
271,  275;  footnotes  186,  196 

Arbuckle,  F.  A.— Pages  123,  158, 
170,  171,  212,  213,  214,  215, 
281,  301;  footnotes  59,  65, 
66,  81,  84,  87,  88,  107,  114, 
124,  158,  166,  220,  233,  235 

Argabrite,  J.  M.— Page  16;  foot- 
notes 118,  151,  177,  178,  181 

Arlett,  Arthur — Page  301 

Arnerich,  Paul  J. — Footnote  146 

Ashley,  George  W.— Footnotes 
139,  144,  146 

Associate  Realty  Boards  of 
California— Page  25 


Associated  Villainies — Page  15 
Australian  Ballot — Page  218 
Avey,  J.  L.— Pages  115,  116 


Badaracco,  J.  B. — Pages  74,  112, 
121;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73,  74,  76,  80,  83,  85,  115, 
118,  120,  121,  127,  128,  177, 
181,  212,  217,  219 
Badham,  W.  E. — Pages  75,  158; 
footnotes  37,  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83,  115, 
120,  127,  128,  212,  217,  219, 
232 

Baker,  Edwin— Pages  108,  109, 
121;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  85,  115,  118, 
120,  127,  128,  144,  149,  151, 
176,  177,  212,  217,  219,  223, 
225,  232 

Ballard,  John  W.— Footnote  139 
Ballard,  R.  H. — Footnote  48 
Barrows,    Dr.    David    P. — Page 

201 

Bartlett,  Alfred— Page  171;    foot- 
notes 126,  139,  144 
Beal,    W.     F.— Pages    108,     112, 
113,    158;    footnotes    42,    43, 
45,   50,   59,   67,   71,   73,   74,   75, 
76,    80,    83,    85,   120,    127,    176, 
212,    217,    219,    232 
Beban,  D. — Footnote  139 
Beck,    George — Footnote    139 
Benedict,   Stanley — Footnote  139 
Benson,    Frank— Pages    16,    163; 

footnotes  119,  153 
Benton,  R.  P. — Page  301;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  59,  67,  71, 
73,  75,  76,  80,  85,  115,  120, 
127,  128,  139,  164,  176,  217, 
219,  232 


XX 


Benz,  W.  E. — Footnote  48 
Berkeley    Non-Partisan    Plan — 
Page  220 

Bernard,  Van — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
120,  127,  128,  176,  212,  217, 

219,  232 

Better  America  Federation — 
Pages  66,  67,  69,  70,  74, 
102,  225,  297,  302,  315;  foot- 
notes 22,  35,  36,  63,  140 

"Billion  Dollar  Lobby"— Pages 
45,  62,  64 

Birdsall,  E.   S. — Footnote  139 

Bishop  Bill— Page  300 

Bishop,  J.  O.— Pages  108,  112, 
113,  158;  footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  75,  76,  85,  115, 
127,  128,  176,  212,  217,  219, 
223,  225 

Blauer,  W.  L. — Footnotes  48,  51 

Blochman — Footnote  156 

Blue  Sky  Law— Page  180 

Boggs,  Frank  S.— Pages  282,  305, 
footnotes  59,  65,  66,  81,  82, 
87,  88,  107,  119,  124,  125, 
153,  158,  166,  177,  178,  181, 

220,  221,   222,    233,    235 
Bohnett,  L.  D. — Footnote  190 
Booth,    Harley  — Pages    51,    61, 

62;   footnote  27 
Boude,  Knox — Footnote  139 
Boynton,   A.   E.— Pages  28 
Boyce,   A.    E. — Footnote   139 
Breed,     A.    H.— Pages    61,     121, 
124r  188,   190,    286;   footnotes 
59,   65,   66,   81,   82,   84,   87,   88, 
107,    114,    119,    122,    123,    124, 
125,    145,    153,    157,    158,    177, 
178,    181,    220,    221,    222,    233, 
235 


Briggs,  Arthur  H. — Pages  239, 
250,  251;  footnote  193 

Britton,  John  A. — Pages  71,  72, 
156;  footnotes  40,  44,  48 

Bromley,  E.  P. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  85,  115,  118,  120,  127, 
128,  151,  177,  178,  181,  212, 
217,  219 

Brooks,  Clifton — Page  74;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  80,  115,  118,  120,  127, 
128,  151,  176,  177,  178,  212, 
217,  219,  232 

Broughton,  Esto  B. — Pages  16, 
297;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  59, 
67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  118, 
120,  127,  128,  151,  176,  177, 
178,  181,  212,  217,  219,  232 

Bruck,  Bismark — Footnotes  118, 
139,  151,  177,  178 

Brown,    H.    W.— Footnote   139 

Brown,  J.  S. — Footnotes  118, 
119,  151,  153,  177,  178,  181 

Browne,  M.  B. — Footnotes  118, 
139,  151,  177,  178 

Budget    Bill— Page    153 

Budget  Board — Pages  81,  82, 
132,  155,  157 

Bureau  of  Tuberculosis — Page 
141;  footnote  100. 

Burke,  Joseph  C. — Footnotes 
139,  144 

Burnett,  Leslie  G— Pages  166, 
207,  209,  290,  301,  302, 
footnotes  66,  82,  87,  88,  106, 
107,  119,  124,  153,  158,  177, 
178,  221,  222,  223,  233,  235 

Burne,  Joseph  F. — Pages  108, 
158;  footnotes  37,  42,  43,  45, 
71,  73,  76,  80,  115,  120,  127, 
128,  176,  212,  217,  219 

Burns,  Daniel  M. — Footnote  168 

Butler,  Edwin  M. — Footnote  139 

Byrne,   Henry  D. — Footnote   146 


XXI 


Calahan,  William  E. — Footnotes 
118,  144,  146,  151,  177,  178, 
181 

California  Federation  of  Wom- 
en's Clubs — Page  293 
Caminetti,  A. — Footnote  58 
Camp,  E.  W.— Page  99 
Campbell,  A.   E.— Footnote   139 
Canepa,   Victor— Pages  269,  276, 
286;   footnote   66,   81,    84,   87, 
88,    119,    125,    139,    153,    158, 
166,    177,    178,    220,    221,    222, 
233,    235 

Carr,  F.  M. — Page  299;  footnotes 
66,  81,  82,  107,  119,  124,  125, 
153,  158,  166,  178,  181,  233, 
235 

Carr,  W.  J.— Pages  16,  58,  208, 
299;  footnotes  59,  65,  66, 
81,  84,  87,  88,  107,  119,  124, 
139,  153,  158,  165,  166,  168, 
177,  178,  181,  220,  221,  222, 
233 

Carroll,  B.  C.— Footnote  48 
Carter,    H.     E.— Footnotes    118, 

151 

Cass,  A.  B. — Footnote  48 
Chamber    of    Commerce,     Oak- 
land— Page  260 
Chamber     of     Commerce,     San 

Francisco — Page  260 
Chamberlin,  Harry  A. — Pages 
58,  147,  158,  171,  282,  283, 
299;  footnotes  66,  81,  84, 
107,  114,  119,  124,  125,  153, 
158,  177,  178,  220,  221,  222, 
233 

Chambers,  Colonel  John — Foot- 
note 93 

Chandler,    W.    F.— Footnote    139 
Chapin,    E.    W.— Footnote    190 
Chenoweth,    Walter    W. — Foot- 
note  139 


Christian,  E.  H. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  48,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  83,  120,  127,  128,  176, 
212,  217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

Clark,  Herbert  W. —  Pages  69, 
87,  291;  footnotes  22,  46,  48 

Clayton,  William — Footnotes  48, 
51 

Cleary,  Charles  W. — Pages  16, 
76;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  59, 
67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
85,  118,  120,  127,  128,  151, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  212,  217, 
219,  223,  225,  232 

Cleveland,  George  C. — Pages 
107,  108;  footnotes  42,  43, 

45,  69,   70,   71,   73,   75,   76,   83, 

127,  128,    176,    212,    217,    219, 
223,  225,  232 

Cohn,  P.  C. — Footnote  139 
Colburn,    R    W. — Footnotes    42, 
43,    45,     67,    71,     73,     74,     75, 
76,     83,     120,     127,     128,     176, 
212,   217,   219,   223,   225,   232 
Collins,     William     M.— Footnote 

146 

Colnon,  Fred — Footnote  4 
Conard,   Grant — Footnote  139 
Connolly,      Thomas      E. — Foot- 
notes 48,  51 

Coombs,  F.  Li. — Page  76;  foot- 
notes 42,  45,  67,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  80,  83,  85,  120,  127, 

128,  212,    217,    219,    223,    225, 
232 

Conservation  Act — Page  180 
Coolidge,    Mrs.    Dane — Footnote 

190 
Crabbe      Enforcement      Law  — 

Footnote  204 
Cramm,    James    E. — Pages    115, 

116 
Creed,  Wigginton  C. — Pages  86, 

99,    125,    126,    291;    footnotes 

46,  48,    89 


XX11 


Crittenden,  B.  S. — Page  76; 
footnotes  42,  43,  45,  59,  67, 
71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  85,  127, 
128,  176,  212,  217,  219,  223, 
225,  232 

Crowley,  John  J.— Pages  199,  269, 
276,  282,  286;  footnotes  66, 
81,  84,  87,  88,  107,  119,  123, 
124,  125,  139,  153,  158,  166, 
177,  178,  181,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Cummings,  F.  J. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  83, 
85,  118,  127,  128,  151,  176, 
177,  178,  181,  212,  217,  219, 
223,  225,  232 

Cutten,   Charles  P.— Page  30 


Dennet,    L.    L. — Pages    16,    162, 

166,    299;    footnotes    66,    84, 

107,    119,    125,    153,    158,    166, 

177,    178,    181,    220,    221,    222, 

233,    235 
Dille,     Dr.     E.     R.— Page     254; 

footnotes   196,    197 
Dinwiddie,     Rev.      Edwin     C. — 

Footnote  188 
Direct       Legislation       League — 

Footnote   148 
Direct  Primary  Law — Pages  13, 

17,    219,    223,    224,    225 
Doran,     W.    A. — Footnotes    118, 

151 
Dorr,    Sara    J. — Pages    269,    270, 

300;    footnotes   204,    208 
Dorris,      Grace      S. — Page      16; 

footnotes   118,   151,    177,   178, 

181 
Downing,    George   W. — Footnote 

139 

Drury,  Wells — Footnote  4 
Drum,    John    S — Pages    53,     97, 

98 


Duncan,  W.  E. — Pages  283,  299; 
footnotes  66,  81,  84,  87,  88,  107, 

119,  125,  153,  158,  166,  177, 

178,  181,  220,  221,  222,  233, 
235 

Dunn,  Chauncey  H. — Page  268; 
footnote  207 

E 

Easton,  George  M.— Page  162; 
footnotes  118,  151 

Easton    Bill— Page    164 

Eden,  Walter— Pages  16,  50, 
282;  299,  footnotes  66,  81. 
82,  84,  87,  88,  107,  118,  124, 
125,  151,  158,  166,  177,  178,  181 

Edwards,  Rodger  G. — Footnotes 
139,  146 

Edwards,  James  S. — Page  258 

Eksward,  Frank  L. — Page  279; 
footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  80,  83,  85,  118,  120, 
127,  128,  144,  146,  151,  176, 
177,  178,  181,  212,  217,  232 

Eksward  Amendment — P  ages 
282,  283 

Ellis,    Edward    S. — Footnote    139 

Encell,   Harry — Footnote   139 

Evans,  S.  C. — Footnotes  119, 
153 


Farmer,    Berk   L. — Footnote   144 
Farmers'  &  Merchants'  Nation- 
al   Bank    of    Los    Angeles — 
Page   187 

Fellom,  Roy — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
120,  127,  128,  212,  217,  219, 
223,  225,  232 

Ferguson,    Daniel — Footnote   139 
Finn,   Thomas— Footnote   139 


XX111 


Fischer,  Will  — Pages  88,  125, 
126;  footnotes  22,  46 

Fish,    Howard   J.— Footnote   139 

Fitzgerald,    P.    A. — Page   276 

Flaherty,  L.  J. — Pages  122, 
276;  footnotes  65,  66,  81,  82, 
84,  87,  88,  107,  119,  124,  125, 
139,  153,  158,  166,  177,  178, 
220,  221,  222,  233,  235 

Flaherty  Bill— Page  298 

Fleishhacker,  Mortimer — Page 
156;  footnotes  48,  51,  111 

Fleming,  Alexander  P. — Foot- 
notes 118,  151,  177,  178, 
181 

Flint,  William  R. — Footnote  139 

Flint,   Thomas — Footnote   168 

Florida  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture—Page 137 

Franchise  Tax,  Business  Cor- 
poration— Footnote  9 

Friedman,  Leo  R— Page  188; 
footnotes  144,  146 

Fulwider,  L.  B. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  85, 
120,  127,  128,  176,  212,  217, 


G 


Gage,  Henry  T. — Footnote  168 
Gandier,  D.  M. — Pages  229, 
236,  237,  238,  239,  243,  244, 
250,  251,  262,  268,  271,  301; 
footnotes  183,  185,  187 
Gates,  Egbert  J. — Pages  147,  153, 
158,  194,  200,  286,  302;  foot- 
notes 66,  81,  82,  84,  87,  88, 
107,  114,  119,  124,  153,  158, 
166,  177,  178,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Gates   Amendment — Page   197 
Gebhart,      Lee — Footnotes      118, 

139,    146,    151 

Gelder,    George — Footnotes    139, 
146 


Gerdes,    Fred   C. —  Footnote    139 
Gillett,     James     N.— Page     24; 

footnote   168 
Gleason,     Edgar     T.— Footnotes 

213,    215 
Godsil,    Charles    W. — Pages    61, 

62,  94,  158,  302;    footnotes    66, 

74,  84,   87,   88,    107,    114,    118, 
124,    125,    139,    144,    151,    166, 
180,    220,    221,    222,    233,    235 

Goethe,    C.    M. — Footnote    190 
Goetting,      Charles      W. — Foot- 
notes 118,   144,   146,   151,   177, 
178 

Goodman,   Joseph — Footnote  4 
Goodwin,  Charles  C. — Footnote  4 
Graft    Prosecution,    San    Fran- 
cisco— Page   12 
Grant,     Edwin     E. — Page     268; 

footnote    137 
Graves,     J.     A. — Footnotes     32, 

143 

Graves,  Sidney  T. — Pages  74, 
107,  113,  121,  160,  162;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  68,  71,  73, 

75,  76,    80,    83,    85,    115,    118, 
120,    127,    128,    143,    151,    176, 
177,    178,    212,    217,    219,    223, 
225,    232 

Graves  Indeterminate  Fran- 
chise Bill— Pages  160,  164, 
168,  169 

Gray,  P.  J.— Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
115,  118,  120,  127,  128,  176, 

177,  178,    212,    217,    219,    223, 
225,    232 

Great  Western  Power  Co. — Page 

156 

Green,    Lyman — Footnote    146 

Greene,  Carlton — Pages  293,  301; 

footnotes   42,   43,   45,    71,   73, 

74,    75,    76,    85,   115,    118,   120, 

127,    146,    151,    163,    176,    177, 

178,  212,    217,    219,    223,    225, 


XXIV 


H 


Haldeman,  H.  M. — Pages  67,  68; 
footnotes  63,  140 

Hamilton,  Edward  H. — Page 
278;  footnotes  27,  46,  53a, 
191,  205 

Harris  Enforcement  Act — Pages 
237,  245,  255,  259,  260,  261, 
270,  275;  footnotes  178,  182 

Harris,  M.  B. — Pages  16,  125, 
127,  128,  129,  166,  229,  241, 
265,  267,  268,  272,  276,  299; 
footnotes  66,  81,  82,  84,  87, 
88,  107,  119,  124,  125,  139, 
146,  153,  158,  162,  166,  177,  178, 
181,  204,  215,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Hart,  Dwight  H.,  Senator — 
Pages  61,  123,  158;  foot- 
notes 59,  66,  81,  87,  107,  114, 
115,  124,  125,  153,  158,  166,  177, 
178,  220,  221,  222,  233,  235 

Hart,    Fred — Footnote    4. 

Hart,  W.  O.,  Assemblyman — 
Footnotes  37,  42,  43,  45,  59, 
65,  67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
82,  83,  85,  86,  119,  120,  128, 

176,  212,     217,     219,     232 
Harkins,   S.   M. — Footnote   48 
Hawes,  F.   C.— Footnotes  42,  43, 

45,  71,  73,  74,  76,  80,  83,  118, 
120,    127,    128,    146,    151,    176, 

177,  178,    181,    212,    217,    219, 
223,     225 

Hawson,      Henry — P  age      223 ; 

footnotes  139,   178 
Hawson  Amendment — Page  223; 

footnote    175 
Haynes,     Dr.     John     R. — Pages 

201,    206,    207;    footnotes    44, 

103,     148,     160,     161,     163 
Hayes,     D.     R. — Footnotes     139, 

146 
Hayes,     J.     J. — Footnotes     139, 

146 


Hearst,     W.     R. — Footnote     4 
Heck,    F.— Pages    108,    112,    113; 
footnotes    42,    43,    45,    71,    73, 

74,  75,    76,    80,    85,    120,    127, 
128,   176,   219,    223,   225,    232 

Hecke,    G.    H.— Pages    136,    137, 

139 
Heisinger,      S.      L. — Pages      76, 

92;    footnotes   42,    43,    45,    71, 

73,    74,    75,    76,    83,    85,    120, 

127,    128,    176,    212,    217,    219, 

232 
Heney,    Francis    J. — Pages    219, 

223 
Hilton,      Oscar      W. — Footnotes 

118,    146,    151 
Hill,   W.    V.— Page    87;    footnote 

46 
Herrin,    William    F. — Footnotes 

1,  77. 

Hoover,    Herbert    C. — Page    201 
Hornblower,   William   B.— Pages 

216,  219,    272;    footnotes    42, 
43,     45,     71,    73,     76,    80,    83, 
85,    120,    127,     128,    176,    212, 

217,  219,    223,    225 
Hudson,    R.    H.— Footnote    144 
Hughes,        Elizabeth — Footnotes 

42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
83,  85,  118,  127,  128,  151,  176, 
177,  178,  181,  212,  217,  219, 
232 

Hughes,  Bishop  Edwin  H. — 
Page  36 

Hume,  G.  E.— Page  75;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  59,  67,  71, 
73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83,  85, 
120,  127,  128,  176,  212,  217, 
219,  223,  225,  232 

Hurley,     Edgar     S.— Pages     74, 

75,  footnotes   42,    43,   45,    71, 
73,    75,    76,    80,    85,    112,    115, 
118,    120,    127,    128,    151,    176, 
177,    178,    212,    217,    219,    223, 
225,   232 

Button,    Harry— Page    276 


XXV 


Indeterminate  Franchise  Law — 
Pages  15,  17,  160,  311 

Ingram,  Thomas  —  Page  282; 
footnotes  66,  81,  82,  84,  87, 
88,  107,  119,  124,  125,  153, 
158,  166,  177,  178,  181.  220, 
221,  222,  233,  235 

Inheritance   Tax — Footnote   9 

Initiative— Pages    17,    194 

Inman,  J.  M.— Pages  102,  125, 
127,  162,  166,  214,  286;  foot- 
notes 66,  81,  84,  87,  88,  107, 
119,  125,  158,  166,  177,  233, 
235 

Insurance  Premium,  Tax  on — 
Footnote  9 

Investment  Companies  Act — 
Page  179 

Irwin,  J.  L.  C.— Pages  51,  60, 
62,  122,  124,  299;  footnotes 
66,  81,  84,  87,  88,  107,  119, 
124,  125,  139,  158,  166,  177, 
178,  181,  220,  221,  222,  233, 
235 

Iverson,  J.  P. — Footnote  98 


Johnson  Bill— Pages  167,  169, 
173,  302 

Johnson,  Frank — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  70,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  83,  85,  127,  128,  176, 
219,  223 

Johnson,  George  H. — Footnote 
139 

Johnson,  Hiram  W. — Pages  28, 
176,  177,  201,  219;  foot- 
notes 92,  137,  168,  173 

Johnson,  M.  B.— Pages  129,  299; 
footnotes  66,  82,  84,  87,  88, 
107,  119,  121,  124,  125,  128, 
153,  177,  178,  181,  220,  221, 
222,  233,  235 


Johnston,  J.  W. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  83, 
118,  127,  128,  146,  177,  178, 
212,  217,  219,  232 

Jones,  G.  L. — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
85,  120,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  232 

Jones,  Herbert  C. — Pages  16, 
58,  99,  129,  213,  282,  297, 
298,  299;  footnotes  59,  66, 
81,  82,  87,  88,  93,  98,  107, 
124,  125,  139,  153,  158,  166, 
177,  178,  181,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Jones,  I. — Page  116;  footnotes 
42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  83,  85,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
219,  232 

Judson,    Fred    E. — Footnote    139 


K 


Karr,  Frank — Footnote  48 
Kasch,    Charles — Footnotes    118, 

151,    177,    178,    181 
Kehoe,    William— Pages    16,    32, 

115,   166;   footnotes   119,   139, 

153,    177,   178 

Kemp,    W.    W.— Page    145 
Kennedy,    W.    P.— Footnote    139 
Kenney,    W.    P.— Footnotes   118, 

151 
Kent,    William— Pages    201,    246, 

247,    248,    249,    253,    254,    257; 

footnotes   188,    189,    190,    192, 

196,    197 

Kerr,  Robert  I. — Footnote  139 
King,  Lyman— Pages  18,   50,  58, 

66,  80,  116,  118,  119;  footnotes 

59,     65,     66,    81,    82,    84,    87, 

88,    107,    119,    124,    139,    153, 

158,    166,    177,    178,    181,    220, 

221,   222,  233,  235 


XXVI 


King  Tax  Bill— Pages  35,  115, 
122,  123,  124,  153,  154,  158, 
299,  316;  footnotes  16,  140, 
143 

Kline,  Chester  M. — Footnotes 
42,  43,  45,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
85,  118,  127,  128,  151,  176, 
177,  178,  181,  212,  217,  219, 
223,  225,  232 

Kloos,  Secretary  of  Camels — 
Page  276 

Knight,  Samuel — Footnotes  118, 
151 

Koster,  Frederick  J. — Page  103 

Kramer,    Ira    E. — Footnote    139 

Kuhn,  Loeb  &  Co. — Footnote 
77 

Kylberg,    H. — Footnote   146 


Lack,  M.  D.— Pages  46,  47,  53 
54 

Lamb,  Charles — Footnotes  118, 
151 

Lane,    Franklin    K. — Footnote   4 

Lathrop,  Dean  Charles  N — 
Page  290 

League  to  Protect  the  Initia- 
tive— Pages  201,  203,  206, 
207;  footnotes  156,  161 

L'ee,  G.  W. — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83,, 
120,  127,  128,  176,  212,  217, 
219,  223,  225,  232 

Lee,  I.  A. — Page  217;  footnotes 
42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  83,  85,  120,  128,  176, 
212,  217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

Leonard,  Bishop  Adna  W. — 
Footnote  198 

Levy,    Leon    G. — Page    103 

Lewis,  Ed. — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
85,  118,  120,  127,  128,  151, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  212,  217, 
219,  223,  225 


Liberator,  The  California- 
Pages  235,  244,  255,  262;  foot- 
notes 182,  187,  191,  198,  202 

Lindley,  Fred  E. —  Footnotes 
118,  151 

Local  Option  Law — Footnote 
183 

Locke,  William  J. — Page  16; 
footnotes  118,  151,  177,  178 

Long,  James  N. — Pages  75,  108; 
footnotes  37,  42,  43,  45,  71, 

73,  74,    75,    76,    120,   127,    139, 
176,    212,    217,    219,    223,    232, 
235 

Long,   Percy   V.— Page   53 
Lostutter,    L.    L. — Footnote    139 
Loucks,    E.    O. — Pages   112,    113; 
footnotes    42,    43,    45,    71,    73, 

74,  75,    76,    80,    83,    85,    115, 
120,    127,    128,    176,    212,    217, 

219,  223,    225,    232 

Luce,  Edgar  A. — Footnote  139 
Lynch,      George     A. — Footnotes 

118,  151 

Lyon,  Charles  W. — Pages  123, 
147,  166,  301;  footnotes  66, 
81,  87,  88,  94,  107,  119,  124, 
128,  139,  153,  158,  177,  178, 

220,  221,    222,    233,    235 
Lyons,    Harry— Page    158;    foot- 
notes  42,    43,    45,    71,    73,    74, 

75,  76,  80,   114,   115,   120,   127, 
176,    212,    217,    219,    223,    225, 
232 

M 

McCargar,  Jesse  B. — Footnote 
48 

McCarthy,  Denis — Footnote  4 

McCloskey,  Daniel — Pages  110, 
112,  158;  footnotes  37,  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
83,  120,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

McColgan,  Charles  J. — Footnotes 
118,  151,  178,  181 


xxvn 


McCray,    C.    C.— Footnotes    118, 

146,  151,  178 

McDonald,  J.  J.— Footnote  139 
McDonald,  W.  A.— Pages  61,  62, 
94  112,  123,  216,  283;  foot- 
no'tes  66,  81,  87,  88,  94,  107, 
114,  119,  124, 125,  139,  153,  158, 
166,  177,  178,  181,  220,  221, 
222,  233,  235 

McDowell,  H.— Footnotes  42,  43, 
45  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
85,  120,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 
McEwen,  Arthur— Page  10;  foot- 
note 4 

McGee,  Ralph— Pages  109,  158; 
footnotes  37,  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73  74,  75,  76,  80,  115,  120, 
127,  128,  176,  212,  217,  219, 
232 

McKeen,  B.  W.— Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
80,  83,  85,  118,  120,  127,  128, 
151,  176,  177,  178,  181,  212, 
217,  219,  232 
McKnight,  Joseph  S.— Footnote 

139 

McNear,    Seward    B.— Page    103 

McPherson,      Robert      B.— Page 

113;     footnotes    37,     42,     43, 

45,    71,    73,    75,    76,     80,    83, 

85,    120,    127,    139,    176,    212, 

217,     219,     223,     225,     232 

Madison,  Robert— Footnotes  118, 

144,    146,    151 
Maguire,     James     G.— Footnote 

168 

Manning,  J.  E.— Pages  205,  206, 
301;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73,    74,    76,    83,    85,    118,    120, 
127, 146,  151, 176,  177,  178,   181, 
212,   217,   219,   223,   225,   232 
Mason,    H.    A.— Page    165 
Marks,   Milton— Footnote    146 


Mather,  F.  D.— Pages  76,  210, 
211;  footnotes  42,  43,  45, 
71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  85, 
103,  120,  127,  128,  151,  163, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  219,  223, 
225 
Matheson,  Captain  Duncan — 

Page  292 
Mathews,   A.   J. — Footnotes  118, 

146,   151 

Mediterranean   Fly— Page   138 
Meek,    B.    B. — Footnote    139 
Merriam,    Frank— Pages   74,    75, 
76,    116,    158,    308;    footnotes 
37,   42,   43,   45,   59,   67,   71,    73, 
75,  76,  80,  83,  85,  115,  118,  127, 
151,    176,    177,    178,    217,    219, 
232 


Mexican       Maggot— Page       139; 

footnote  97 
Miller,    D.    W. — Footnotes     118, 

151,  177,  178,  181 
Miller,   H.   A.— Footnote  181 
Miller,   J.    H.— Footnote   48 
Mitchell,  Thomas  A.— Page  113; 
footnotes   37,    42,    43,   45,   71, 
73,    76,   80,    83,    118,    120,   128, 
151,    176,    177,    178,    181,    212, 
217,    219,    223,    225,    232 
Montgomery,    S.    T.— Pages   239, 

251 

Moore,  Walter  M.— Page  103 
Morris,   C.    W.— Page  158;   foot- 
notes  42,    43,    45,    73,    75,    76, 
115,    118,    120,    127,    128,    146, 
151,    181,    212,    217,    232 
Morrison,   H.    F. — Footnotes    42, 
43,  45,   71,   73,  74,   75,   76,   80, 
118,    120,    127,    128,    151,    176, 
177,    178,    181,    212,    217,    232 

Mott  D.  W. — Footnote   139 
Mouser  Frank  H.— Footnote  139 


XXV111 


N 


Nealon,  James  C. —  Footnotes 
119,  153,  177,  178,  181 

Nelson,  H.  C.— Pages  50,  299; 
footnotes  59,  65,  66,  81,  82, 
87,  88,  107,  124,  125,  158, 
166,  180,  220,  221,  222,  233, 
235 


Oakley,    W.    C.— Footnotes    118, 

151 
Octopus     The,     Frank    Norrls — 

Footnotes  3,  168 
Odale,  Oscar  L. — Footnotes  118, 

177,    178,     181 
Oddie,    Clarence    M. — Footnotes 

48,    90 
Osborne,    A.    E. — Footnotes    66, 

81,    82,    84,    87,    88,    107,    125, 

158,    166,    180,    220,    221,    222, 

233 
Otis,      Edwin      M. — Page      299; 

footnotes   66,    81,   82,    84,    87, 

88,    107,    119,    121,    125,    153, 

158,    166,    177,    178,    181,    233, 

235 


Pacific  Gas  &  Electric  Co. — 
Page  156 

Pardee,  George  C. — Page  91; 
footnote  168 

Parker,  J.  H. — Page  172;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  76,  80, 
118,  120,  127,  128,  151,  177, 
178,  212,  217,  232 

Parkinson,  O.  O. — Page  300; 
footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71,  73, 
74,  75,  76,  80,  83,  85,  120, 
127,  128,  176,  217,  219,  232 

Payson,  A.  H. — Footnote  48 


Pedrotti,  J.  L.— Page  158;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  80,  83,  115,  120, 
176,  212,  217,  219,  223,  225 

Pettis,  J.  A.— Pages  75,  110; 
footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  127,  139,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

Pettit,  Melvin— Footnotes  118, 
151,  177,  178,  181 

Pfaeffle,  Eugene — Pages  276, 
282 

Phelan,    James    D. — Pages    201, 

245,   252 

Phelps,  John  S. — Footnote  139 
Phillips,  Peter  C.— Footnote  139 
Plehn,  Prof.  Carl  C. — Pages  21, 

23,   24,   28,   46;   footnotes   23, 

24 
Plehn   Plan  of  Taxation — Pages 

21,    24,    100,    115,    116,    117 
Poll   Tax — Footnote   9 
Polsley,     Harry — Footnotes    118, 

151 
Powers,  F.  J. — Footnotes  42,  43, 

45,   71,   73,   74,   75,   76,   80,   83, 

127,    128,    176,    212,    217,    219, 

223,   225 
Prendergast,     J.     J. —  Footnotes 

42,   43,   45,   71,   73,   74,   75,   76, 

83,    120,    127,    128,    176,    212, 

217,   219,   223,  225,   232 
Prendergast,    N.    J. —  Footnotes 

118,    144,    151,    177,    178,    181, 

182 
Price,      Champ.      S. —  Page     16; 

footnote   151 

Prohibition — Pages  182,  229 
Public  Health,  Department  of — 

Page  145 
Public  Morals  Committee — Page 

282 
Public    Utilities    Act—  Footnote 

92 


XXIX 


Purkitt,  Claude  P.—  Pages  60, 
62,  299,  302;  footnotes  66, 
81,  82,  84,  87,  114,  119,  124, 
153,  158,  166,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Q 
Quinn,    John    F. — Footnote    139 


R 


Railroad  Commission — Pages  34, 
148,  160;  footnotes  53,  101, 
111 

Ream,  H.  B. —  Page  158;  foot- 
notes 37,  42,  43,  45,  71,  73, 
76,  80,  85,  115,  118,  127,  128, 
139,  161,  176,  177,  178,  217 

Redlight  Abatement — Pages  179, 
180,  194;  footnote  137 

Regents  of  University  of  Cali- 
fornia— Footnote  141 

Reynolds,    L.    A. — Footnote   53 

Rigdon,  E.  S.—  Pages  126,  127, 
214;  footnotes  65,  66,  81,  82, 
87,  88,  107,  119,  124,  125,  139, 
158,  166,  177,  178,  181,  220, 

221,  222,    233,    235 
Roberts,    F.    M. —  Footnotes    42, 

43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  76,  80,  118, 
120,  127,  128,  151,  176,  177, 
178,  212,  217,  219,  223,  225, 
232 

Rolfe,    Charles    A. — Footnote    32 

Rolph,    James,    Jr. — Page    223 

Rominger,  Joseph  A. — Pages  58, 

59,    158,    302,    308;    footnotes 

66,    107,    114,    119,    124,    153, 

158,    177,    178,    181,    220,    221, 

222,  233,    235 

Rose,  J.  Leonard  —  Footnotes 
118,  146,  151,  177,  178 

Rosenshine,  A.  A. —  Footnotes 
42,  43,  45,  67,  71,  73,  74,  75, 
76,  80,  83,  85,  118,  120,  127, 
128,  151,  176,  177,  178,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 


Ross,  A.  F. — Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83, 
85,  120,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

Rowell,  Chester  H.— Page  277; 
footnotes  156,  214,  215 

Rush,  Benj.  F. —  Footnotes  66, 
81,  82,  84,  87,  88,  107,  119, 
125,  158,  166,  177,  178,  220, 
221,  222,  233,  235 

Ryan,    James   J. — Footnote   139 


Salisbury— Footnote   139 
Sample,    E.    P. — Pages    58,    123, 
299;  footnotes  65,  66,  81,  82, 
84,   87,  88,   107,   114,   119,   124, 
125,    153,    158,    177,    178,    181, 
233,   235 
San   Jose   State   Normal  —  Page 

145 
Santa    Cruz    Convention  —  Page 

12 

Santa    Clara   Valley  —  Page   145 
Saylor,  Anna  L. — Page  16;  foot- 
notes  42,    43,    45,    71,    73,    74, 
75,    76,    80,    83,    85,    118,    120, 
127,    128,    151,    177,    178,    212, 
217,  219,   223,   225,   232 
Schmidt,    Walter   J.— Page    110; 
footnotes   71,    73,   74,    75,    76, 
80,    127,    139,    176,    212,    217, 
219,  223,  225 

Schmitz,  Eugene — Page  276 
Scott,   F.   C.— Footnote  139 
Scott,   ~LL   D.— Footnote  139 
Scott,   Wm.   S.— Pages   205,   302; 
footnotes   66,   81,   82,    84,    87, 
88,    107,    119,    124,    125,    153, 
158,    166,    177,    178,    181,    220, 
221,    222,    233 

Seavey,  Clyde  L. — Pages  46,  47, 
54,  69,  91,  99,  148;  footnotes 
22,  24,  58,  102 


XXX 


Sharkey,  Will  R.— Pages  122, 
163,  166;  footnotes  59,  65,  66, 
81,  82,  87,  88,  107,  119,  124, 
139,  153,  158,  166,  177,  178, 
233,  235 

Shartel,   A.   F.— Footnote  139 

Shearer,  Wm.  B. — Page  158; 
footnotes  66,  81,  82,  87,  88, 
107,  114,  119,  125,  139,  158, 
166,  177,  178,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Shortridge,  Sam— Pages  253,  254, 
257,  258;  footnotes  195,  196, 
200 

Shoup,  Paul — Page  69;  footnotes 
22,  48 

Sibley,  Dr.  Josiah — Footnote  186 
Single  Tax— Pages  189,  191,  192, 

200,   203 

Sisson,   Elmer  L. — Footnote   139 

Slater,    Herbert    W. — Pages    60, 

214;  footnotes  66,  81,  82,  84, 

87,  88,  119,  124,  125,  139,  153, 

158,    166,    177,    178,    220,    221, 

222,    233,    235 

Sloss,  M.  C. — Page  101;   footnote 

59;   Appendix  page  IV. 
Sloss,  Mrs.  Aaron — Page   293 
Smith,   A.   H.— Footnotes   48,   51 
Smith,   O.    W.— Page   217;   foot- 
notes  42,    43,    45,    71,    73,    75, 
76,  80,  85,  127,   128,   176,   217, 
219,    223,    225,    232 

Smith,   Rev.   Paul— Page   290 
Southerland,  W.  A. — Footnote   48 
Southern     Pacific  —  Pages     142, 

176,  217;  footnotes  25,  29 
Spalding,  C.  C. — Page  71;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  83,  85,  120,  127,  128, 
176,  212,  217,  219,  223,  225, 
232 

Spengler,  Lewis  A. —  Footnote 
139 


Spence,  H.  R. —  Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
120,  127,  128,  176,  217,  219, 
223,  225,  232 

Sproule,  William— Pages  98,  99, 
316;  footnotes  48,  51 

State  Board  of  Control — Page 
148 

State  Board  of  Equalization — 
Pages  30,  119,  121;  footnote 
56 

State  Federation  of  Labor — 
Page  74 

State   Grange— Page   26 

State  Law  Enforcement  League 
— Page  268 

Stephens,  Governor,  W.  D. — 
Pages  64.  71,  79,  80,  157, 
202 

Stern,  Charles  F. —  Page  102; 
footnote  62 

Stetson,  John  W. — Footnote  170 

Stevens,  A.  F. — Pages  110,  112, 
113,  158;  footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  83,  85, 
115,  118,  127,  128,  151,  176, 
212,  217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

Stoddard,  Helen  M.— Page  270; 
footnote  208 

Strother,  S.  L. — Footnote  118 

Struckenbruck,  J.  W. — Footnote 
139 

Sullivan,    Matt    I.— Page    27 

Tabler,   L.    N.— Footnote   139 

Tarke,    Louis — Footnote    144 

Tax  Investigation  and  Economy 
League — Pages  84,  291;  foot- 
note 46 

Taxpayers  Association  of  Cali- 
fornia—  Pages  22,  88,  125, 
315;  footnote  68 

Thelen,  Max— Pages  41,  88,  102, 
125,  126,  129,  130,  131,  132, 
133,  134,  135,  136,  138,  140, 
141,  142,  145,  146,  147,  148, 
149,  156,  291,  295;  footnotes 
92,  95,  96,  101,  102,  103,  110 


XXXI 


Thompson,  Mrs.  Edythe  Tate— 
Footnotes  100,  119,  139,  153 

Tunell,  George  C.— Page  69; 
footnote  22 

Tuohy,   John  P.— Page  26 

Twain,   Mark — Footnote  4 


U 


University  of  California— Pages 
154,   159;   footnote  108 


Vance,    Champ    S. — Footnote   48 

Vicini,     C.     P. —  Footnotes     118, 

146,    151,    177.    178,    181 

W 

Walker,    G.    S. — Footnote    190 

Wallace,  A.  J.— Pages  248,  249, 
250,  251,  252,  253,  254,  256, 
257,  258;  footnotes  191,  192, 
193,  195,  198,  199,  200,  202 

Warren,  George  W.— Pages  71, 
112;  footnotes  37,  40,  42,  43, 
44,  45,  59,  67,  71,  73,  74,  75, 
76,  80,  83,  115,  118,  127,  128, 
151,  176,  177,  178,  181,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225 

Water   Commission — Page   179 

Watson,  George  C. —  Footnote 
144 

W.  C.  T.  U.— Pages  205,  243, 
270 

Webb,  U.  S.  Attorney  General 
Page  55;  Appendix  page  i. 

Weber,  A.  A. —  Pages  75,  158; 
footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71,  73, 
74,  75,  76,  115,  120,  127,  128, 
176,  212,  217,  219,  223,  225, 
232 


Webster,  J.  C.— Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
83,  120,  127,  128,  176,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225 

Wendering,  A.  A. — Footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80, 
83,  118,  120,  127,  128,  151, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  182,  212, 
217,  219,  223,  225,  232 

West,  P.  G.— Footnotes  42,  43, 
45,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  120, 
127,  128,  176,  212,  217,  219, 
223,  225,  232 

Western   Pacific — Footnote   92 

Whisky,  used  by  Lobby  on 
Legislators — Page  62 ;  foot- 
note 29 

White,  J.  R. — Page  217;  foot- 
notes 37,  42,  43,  45,  71,  73, 

74,  75,    76,    80,    83,    85,    115, 
118,    120,    128,    151,    176,    212, 
217,    219,   223,    225,   232 

White,  Stephen  M.—  Footnote 
168 

Whyte,  Rev.  Father,  M.  J.— 
Footnote  185 

Wickham,  George  R.— Page  199; 
footnotes  118,  151 

Widenmann,  H.  J. —  Footnote 
139 

Wiel,  Eli  H.— Page  103 

Wilbur,  Dr.  Ray  Lyman— Page 
201 

Wills,   Robert   E.— Footnote   139 

Windrem,  Guy — Page  76;  foot- 
notes 42,  43,  45,  71,  73,  74, 

75,  76,    80,    83,    85,    118,    120, 
127,    128,    151,    176,    177,    178, 
212,   217,   219,   223,   225,    232 

Wishart,     Harry     A. —  Footnote 

139 

Wolfe,   E.  I.— Footnote  139 
Wood,  Gardner— Pages  169,  170; 

footnote    123 

Wood,    Will    C. — Footnote    105 
Wood,   W.   H.— Footnote   48 


XXX11 


Wright,  H.  W.— Pages  16,  77, 
147;  footnotes  42,  43,  45,  71, 
73,  74,  75,  76,  80,  83,  85,  118, 
120,  127,  128,  139,  146,  151, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  186,  212, 

217,  219,   223,    225,   232 
Wright,    T.    M.— Pages    16,    229, 

274,  276,  287;  footnotes  42, 
43,  45,  67,  71,  73,  74,  75,  76, 
83,  85,  118,  127,  128,  139,  151, 
176,  177,  178,  181,  212,  217, 

218,  219,    223,   225,    232 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act — 

Page   297 


Yonkin,  Henry  H. —  Pages  60, 
166;  footnotes  66,  81,  82,  84, 
87,  88,  107,  114,  119,  124, 
158,  177,  178,  220,  221,  222, 
233,  235 

Young,  C.  C.— Pages  60,  91,  201, 
301;  footnote  139 


Zant,  T.  E.— Page  165 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  039  579    6 


